> Authors : Daniel King
> Adrian Farrel
> Filename: draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-07.txt
> Pages : 62
> Date: 2014-02-13
>
> Abstract:
>Services such as content distribution, distributed d
Hi OPSAWG,
The MANET working group develops protocols for mobile and ad-hoc networks (some
of which are less mobile or less ad hoc than others).
After discussion with the IESG and specifically the OPS ADs, the WG has agreed
to try to put together some thoughts on management of these networks.
It
Hi,
The authors of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture are in the process of
requesting AD-sponsored publication of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture
This I-D is a bit of an architecture and a bit an applicability statement. It is
also significantly about how to build and operate networks
There are editorials and nits, but I figured it was a bit early to call
> those out.
>
> Tom Taylor
>
> On 25/07/2014 2:02 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The authors of draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture are in the process of
> > requesting AD
Hi Michael and Qin,
Thanks for the constructive discussions.
In line...
> > I have quickly scanned this document. Some initial comments [ms]:
> >
> > *** Page 3:
> >
> >Service Model: A service model is a specific type of data model.
> >
> > It describes a service and all of the paramete
[mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
发送时间: 2016年7月5日 19:55
收件人: Liushucheng (Will); Adrian Farrel; Liushucheng (Will); Qin Wu
主题: New Version Notification for draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-00.txt
has been successfully sub
example).
Have a look at Figure 3.
Adrian
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 19 July 2016 09:28
To: 'Benoit Claise'; 'Qin Wu'; 'opsawg@ietf.org'
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for
draft-wu-opsawg-service-m
What is worrying me in this conversations is the discrepancy between the stated
aim in draft-brockners-proof-of-transit and the function provided by the draft.
I'm not (at the moment ;-) picking hols in what the S**3 scheme achieves, but I
am questioning whether it provides enough to be useful in t
I've been following this work and believe it is something the IETF should work
on and that this is better than a good starting point for working group work.
I can't promise that I will devote much attention to the work as it progresses,
but I will participate in occasional reviews. I've talked
e input would be welcome.
Cheers,
Adrian (for the authors)
--
Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen more new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the helpful email.
> In general, I believe that distinguishing between different terms for "service
> model" is useful.
>
> Actually, I would suggest to align the terminology in
draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-
> model accordingly, e.g., by using the term "Customer Service M
Hi Michael, all,
Apologies for dropping this thread.
I am making changes to the -03 revision and we'll post it soon.
More comments in line.
Cheers,
Adrian
> > > I have quickly scanned this document. Some initial comments [ms]:
> > >
> > > *** Page 3:
> > >
> > >Service Model: A service mo
draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-03.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>
>
> Title : Service Models Explained
> Authors : Qin Wu
> Will Liu
>
Hi,
We previously discussed draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained a bit on this
list and also at a face-to-face meeting.
Since then the I-D has moved on to a -03 revision picking up and addressing
comments from the list, private emails, and the authors' gradual understanding
of the field.
We d
Ooops wrong subject line :-(
Will re-start thread
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: 31 October 2016 12:04
> To: 'opsawg@ietf.org'
> Cc: draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explai...@ietf.org
> Subject: Soliciting t
drian
--
Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.
___
Hi Linda,
> Does your draft intend to cover model for all possible services? Such as
Private
> Line service?
> Simple vanilla IP Internet access services, SD-WAN services, or others?
>
> As of now, the draft is primarily on L3VPN services. Is it intended? Or to be
> expanded to more?
Are we read
Hi operational people,
Please note that the L2SM working group has been formed and will meet in Seoul
on Thursday at 9:30.
The focus is the development of a YANG model for the provision of L2VPN services
on the interface between operator and customer.
Thanks,
Adrian
Thanks Joe,
And to add to that, the SFC WG seems to be building a head of steam to work on
OAM, and now looks like a good time to influence that work.
Adrian
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 15 November 2016 08:20
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject
Hi Frank,
Thought I had possibly mis-heard in RTGWG, but heard you again in OPSAWG say
something about "using part of a random number" .
I just ran off to look at draft-brockners*.txt and searched "random".
I see some discussion of random numbers that looks fine, but I don't see
anything (which
Brilliant, thanks Frank.
My eyesight failed me.
I'll read and digest.
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) [mailto:fbroc...@cisco.com]
> Sent: 15 November 2016 08:55
> To: adr...@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; rt...@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Random numbers a
Hi Tianran,
I'm fairly much in agreement that this is a topic that should be worked on in
the IETF.
I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work undertaken in
a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area, and I hope there can be
some careful coordination.
My f
And just replying to the other email in the branched thread...
>> I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work
>> undertaken in a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area,
>> and I hope there can be some careful coordination.
>
> I believe the potentially perceiv
Oh, how I hate HTML emails!
Hi Carlos,
>>> I am somewhat nervous about the overlap between this and OAM work
>>> undertaken in a number of working groups chiefly in the Routing Area,
>>> and I hope there can be some careful coordination.
>>
>> I also asked the authors about this question. Espe
line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>
>
> Title : Service Models Explained
> Authors : Qin Wu
> Will Liu
> Adrian Farrel
> Filename: draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-04.txt
> P
imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: 05 January 2017
Frank,
You probably used short-hand, but I think you mean "visited a particular set of
nodes in a particular order".
I agree with Stewart where we can make reasonable assumptions about trust
domains (e.g. where a breach in the trust domain is going to allow far worse
things to happen). But I a
Hi,
We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is
consistent with the latest version of
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a
question has come up.
In section 2 you have a nice definition of Network Service YANG Modules and this
d
sification]
and
> [draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained]) can check if those YANG models
> are device models or service models.
>
> Regards,
> Tianran
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farr
Hi Dean,
I've been processing your response and the continuing thread with you and
Tianran.
> > We've been trying to ensure that draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained is
> > consistent with the latest version of
> > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification. In discussions with Tianran a
> >
icts, these two I-Ds can complement each
> other.
>
> Best,
> Tianran
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carl Moberg
> > (camoberg)
> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 12:48 AM
> > To: adr...@
Hi,
As just stated at the mic in the OPS Area meeting, I met with Dean Bogdanovic
today to discuss the overlap/underlap between these two drafts.
1. We went through the text changes to
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification and I am happy that changes in the
-05 revision address the question
Of course, I support the WG working on this :-)
The offer of a review from Luis is gratefully accepted. That will make for a
nice first revision inside the WG.
Joe. Yes, I'd be interested to hear what other's think about your point, and to
add text to clarify the issue.
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Or
Thanks,
Will do.
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
> Sent: 21 June 2017 02:22
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-
> explained-06
tions and Management Area Working Group
> of the IETF.
>
> Title : Service Models Explained
> Authors : Qin Wu
> Will Liu
> Adrian Farrel
> Filename: draft-ietf-opsawg-ser
> > >
> > > I reviewed this version.
> > >
> > > I do think it is ready for a WGLC.
> >
> > Really? It's surprisingly fast. :-) Though I know this draft evolved
> > several versions before WG adoption.
> >
> > Tianran
> >
Hi,
I was unable to be in OPSAWG on Tuesday because I was chairing I2NSF at that
time.
Obviously, Qin did a fabulous job presenting the slides.
Were there any issues or discussions that should be brought to the list?
Thanks,
Adrian
___
OPSAWG mailing
gt; list.
>
> When you think you have dealt with all the pending issues, of course you can
ask
> for the LC.
>
> Cheers,
> Tianran
>
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19,
Med, thanks!
All of this looks tractable. I think nearly 100% is just stuff we can take.
There are one or two items for clarification where we'll respond at the time of
the edits.
Cheers,
Adrian
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> mohamed.b
Dan, thanks!
> Comment #1 - The current abstract could be simmered down to:
>
> The IETF has produced a number of data modules in the YANG modelling
> language. The majority of these modules are used to construct data models
> to model devices or monolithic functions.
>
> A small number of YAN
Hi Carl,
> - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
> "Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
> in draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained. At the time of the first
> revision of what was
> draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang
oming soon - Tales from Beyond the Wood
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.
> -Original Message-
> From: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
> [mailto:luismiguel.contrerasmuri...@telefonica.com]
>
> Authors:
> Although this is an informational document, please indicate with an email on
the
> mailing list explicitly whether you are aware or you are not aware of any IPRs
> related to the drafts.
>
> [Qin]: Receive kindly reminder from chairs recently, thanks. here I confirm
that
> we have no
Hi Med,
Thanks again for your review. I'm just in the process of updating the draft and
wanted to let you know what changes I'm making.
> - Remove RFC7426 and RFC8049 from the normative references. Those are cited
> as examples.
Yes. No problem with that.
> - Simplify the text in the abstract a
Hi Dan,
Thank for the review.
I'm currently updating the document. Here are my answers to your comments.
> Comment #1 - The current abstract could be simmered down to:
>
> The IETF has produced a number of data modules in the YANG modelling
> language. The majority of these modules are used t
Hi Carl,
I'm in the process of updating the document and wanted to let you know what
changes are being made.
>>> - The term “Network Service Model” in RFC 8199 is intended to cover both
>>>"Customer Service Model” as well as “Service Delivery Model” as defined
>>>in draft-ietf-opsawg-se
Hey Luis,
As we are updating the draft for last call comment, here are responses to your
comments.
> *Specific comments*
>
> - There are several sentences along the document trying to define the scope of
> service model in the context of IETF. These are: (1) in Terms and Concepts,
for
> Service,
Title : Service Models Explained
> Authors : Qin Wu
> Will Liu
> Adrian Farrel
> Filename: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained-02.txt
> Pages : 22
> Date
Warren, thanks.
Updating now.
A
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: 05 September 2017 13:16
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-
> explained
>
> Apologies, I forgot
Hi again...
> 1: While unfortunate, I think many will not understand the q.v. in the
> Service definition in Section 2. Terms and Concepts. Perhaps break it
> out, or more clearly point where more info is to be found.
Yeah, my mistake for writing in a language that has been dead for 2000 years :-
Hey Joe,
Thanks for that. Looks like an easy change for us to pick up along the way.
Best,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Salowey [mailto:j...@salowey.net]
Sent: 17 September 2017 20:32
To: sec...@ietf.org
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-expl
Hey Benoit,
Thanks for the review.
> Figure 3: Network configuration model is a brand new term that is only
> mentioned
> in the figure, and not explained.
OMG! That is a good catch.
> In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be renamed to RFC
> 8199
> "Network Element
Hi Benoit,
>> In RFC 8199, we made a distinction between model and YANG modules.
>> This is why we defined the terms "Network Service YANG modules" and
>> "Network Element YANG modules" and not models. You should follow this
>> convention. After all, from the abstract, this document focuses on YA
> For now I'll complete the AD writeup, and put it in AD watching,
> revised ID needed state. Once y'all have figured out an answer I'll
> hit the Go button.
Fair enough, Warren.
I have an update ready with changes for everyone else's comment, so we are
"close".
I know that Benoit is busy fell
Hi Tom,
Long time!
> > What I see from 7950 is that a "YANG module" is a compilable blob of
> > YANG that may include other modules or specific constructs from another
> > module. That is clear enough.
> >
> > What is less clear is what a "data model" is or is not. I think that
> > if, for example
Thanks Robert,
> I don't have text to suggest, but please look at the first bullet of section
5.
> The explanation here was less helpful than the other bullets. Demonstrating
the
> confusion due to the reuse of the word "service" doesn't help clarify the
> confusion. I wonder if there's more conve
Thanks David,
> Abstract: "... used within the IETF...". Wouldn't the document serve better to
> describe how the models could/are used by the industry including within SDN?
> Several of these models are used by other SDOs for their work in e.g.,
> providing
> network architecture, equipment requ
nks,
Adrian (as Shepherd)
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 05 August 2022 14:03
To: 'Rob Wilton (rwilton)'
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] Checking in on draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-p
Hi Tom, all,
I think my review as Shepherd ran into the same concern. And it is one of my
long-standing gripes that "we" (the IETF) repeatedly confuse VPN as a service
with the means and mechanisms to realise the VPN within the network. Of course,
as network engineers, it is understandable why
I have a fly-by response to this which is to say that "service degraded" is not the same as "service down".
Consider a p2mp service where one leaf is suddenly not reachable. You might say that the contracted service is not being delivered, but it will often be "almost
Resending this cos somehow by autocomplete got mangled.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 22 May 2023 09:59
To: 'ops...@ietf.com'
Cc: 'draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-...@ietf.org'
Subject: A review of draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl
Hi all,
I think that enha
Hi,
That was a quick and thorough update, thanks!
I like this draft 😊
Cheers,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: I-D-Announce On Behalf Of
internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 07 June 2023 11:44
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl-03.txt
A New Internet-Draf
Hi Tianran,
I think this is a timely piece of work that should be adopted. I commit
to further reviews if it is adopted.
A few minor comments on this version, below. Nothing that needs to be
fixed before adoption.
There is a meta-question: should the schedule model be moved out into
As I said in my original comment, I'd like to see this separation. Various
recent conversations suggest that scheduling (services, resources, ACLs,
etc.) is becoming a Big Thing. Having a common model to facilitate this
would be really helpful.
QUESTION FOR THE CHAIRS
If this is split out, doe
Thanks for asking, Joe.
Yes, I think that the WG should be working on ACs. Yes, I think that this
set of I-Ds form the basis for what needs to be covered.
I am *slightly* queasy about there being four documents. I'd be happier if
some consolidation were possible. But I have no concrete sugg
Hi,
I just saw draft-united-tvr-schedule-yang posted.
Please be aware that OPSAWG is working on YANG modules for scheduling as
well.
draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl was just recently adopted, but the Wg has
determined that the scheduling aspects should be generalised and pulled out
into a separate docu
Hi Jordi,
Thanks for the heads-up on this meeting. It will clearly be of interest to
the CATS working group although it is unclear from your brief summary of the
issue whether you intend exposure of information to "the application" (by
which I think you may mean the programs running on a host)
[Adding the NMOP list - which is currently called NETMO]
It's a month later.
Nigel and I have been working on the first version of key terminology. We've
actually made some progress (perhaps slower than our initial enthusiasm
might have suggested).
We're just putting the last polish on
I suppose that I don’t object to the definition of new abbreviations if people
are keen.
Personally, I don’t get the value of “inb-OAM” compared with “in-band OAM”.
It’s not like it can be said faster (one additional syllable to say it) and it
only saves four characters in typing.
“oob
too generally, while others already have perfect definitions,
that will lead to something similar to this document to bring the good into the
light.
Further comments in line…
From: Greg Mirsky
Sent: 12 January 2024 00:09
To: Carlos Pignataro ; Adrian Farrel
Cc: Ops Area WG ; IETF IPPM
.
Looking forward to a fruitful debate,
Nigel and Adrian
===
Internet-Draft draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology-00.txt is now
available.
Title: Some Key Terms for Incident Management
Authors: Nigel Davis
Adrian Farrel
Name:draft-davis-nmop-incident
I am also as confused as Alex :-)
The OPSAWG charter says:
The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
The NMOP charter i
chairs copying either mailing list. We do intend
moving fairly quickly on this, but will wait until after MPLS has met (IETF
Tuesday) before sending anything.
Cheers,
Adrian (for the MPLS WG chairs)
-Original Message-
From: mpls On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: 08 March 2024 15:37
To: '
ditional protocol work to resolve any
issues using the procedures described in RFC 4775 and RFC 4929.
Kind regards,
Adrian Farrel, MPLS Working Group Co-Chair
(On behalf of the MPLS Working Group and Co-Chairs)
Joe Clarke, OPSAWG Co-Chair
(On behalf of
Hi Henk,
It should come as no surprise that I would be happy to see this adopted.
I want to note that, as is always the case in the IETF, adoption would mean
that the working group can change every word of the document and even decide to
abandon the document. So Carlos and I are listening to al
That sounds like a good point, Dhruv.
Cheers,
Adrian
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 01 May 2024 11:52
To: Henk Birkholz
Cc: OPSAWG
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Hi,
I support adoption.
Just one commen
Hello Henk,
No I'm not aware of any IPR the pertains to the content of this draft.
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 02 May 2024 16:49
To: opsawg ;
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-m...@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] 🔔 IPR Call for
draft-pig
Thanks Henk,
Apologies for the fatuous original name of this draft (but it worked to get
everyone's attention ;-)
- Yes, your suggested new name works for me.
- Since you ask, as one of the editors, I commit to a "pro-active alignment",
making changes as requested by the WG, and paying attenti
sounds good with thanks!
>
> I can post a rev++ addressing all discussion thus far, and then an
> unchanged draft-ietf-opsawg-...-00
>
> Thanks!
>
> Carlos.
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:14 AM Adrian Farrel <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Hen
Well timed email, Alex.
I made a note during today’s meeting to chase Benoit to see whether he is happy
with the references.
On reflection, getting Benoit happy may be a stretch.
The authors are working on polish. Carlos plans a revision “soon”, and I plan
to take a pass next week.
My g
Hi authors and working group.
I just had cause to read this document and thought I would share my
comments on the list.
The draft appears as -00, but it is a little more mature than that
implies because it replaces draft-song-ntf-02.
I think a foundation document on telemetry would be useful fo
> 3. need special definition and support, not apply for any mib data.
>
> Do you think the above are the SNMP defeat for telemetry use?
>
> Or what your thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Tianran
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@oldd
Hi authors,
I see you posted -02 and so I have given it a quick review. I spent my time
on the early sections because those are the ones that introduce the ideas to
the new reader.
Feel free to discuss, although the changes are basically editorial.
Best,
Adrian
===
Abstract
OLD
This docume
Hi Tianran, working group,
Tl;dr -- I support adoption
I read Juergen's very substantive comments, and I probably need to go back
and re-read them. Juergen is a beacon for how IETF participants should
contribute constructively and in detail.
His detailed comments and suggestions for improvement
Hey authors,
I reviewed -02 back in March and sent you a pile of comments mainly with
suggested text changes.
You posted -03 shortly after, and I just checked - looks like you made all of
the changes. Thanks.
While looking through the current version, I see a few bits and pieces that
could be
Hi authors, WG,
I needed to read this document to check out a couple of things, and so
here is a review that I collected along the way. I hope it is useful.
In general, I found the document a help collection of thoughts on the space
and I encourage more work to refine it.
Best regards,
Adrian
Hi,
I was co-chair of the L3SM working group and co-author of RFC 8309, "Service
Models Explained".
I think this model fits well with the previous work and I am encouraged that it
derives from implementation of L3SM and has support from operators as well as
being an implementation in progress.
Hi,
I just read the most recent version of this draft. It's a good starting
point for describing the topic, and I think that the working group should
adopt it up so we can reach agreement on the content.
I appreciate Appendix A: including the material is helpful, but keeping it
out of the main bo
Hi,
I sent the authors comments on a previous version of the document and
the authors made updates to address my concerns.
Considering this adoption poll, I have done another review of the draft.
I think it provides a useful overview of in-situ telemetry approaches and
Will serve the WG
I think this discussion might have gotten a little out of hand!
Frank is clearly upset that his comments at the microphone did not make it into
the minutes. I think we all have a responsibility to review draft minutes when
we have made comments and check that they have been captured correctly. W
Isnt it possible to handle case b) by defining a value to have the meaning
no value has been assigned and then the user an explicitly set that value?
Adrian
From: netmod On Behalf Of Oscar González de Dios
Sent: 11 February 2020 02:40
To: opsawg@ietf.org; net...@ietf.org
Subject: [netmo
Hey Roque,
Good news about the implementation.
If you look at Appendix A of the draft you'll see that a number of other
implementations have been written up and included. I'm sure if you constructed
some text and sent it to Oscar (the editor) he would be happy to include it in
the next revisio
Hey Tom,
Is there a typo in your email? You said...
> So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead to a bad
> outcome; it is a question of looking carefully across the range
> of documents to see what is, or is likely to be common.
I wondered whether you intended a "not" in there some
;Oscar
González de Dios' ; adr...@olddog.co..uk
Cc: 'opsawg'
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 28 May 2020 14:29
Hey Tom,
Is there a typo in your email? You said...
> So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead
> I asked what the four documents were since AFAICT two are published
> RFC, and that has been confirmed. So what is going to happen to those
> RFC?
My proposal (but who am I to say what will actually happen) was:
- step one: nothing
The new module is shaped as it would have been had it been c
Hi,
I've reviewed this document in working group last call and support its
publication. I found the Appendix particularly helpful.
I have some minor thoughts that the authors may want to consider as the
document moves forward.
Thanks,
Adrian
==
idits says that draft-ietf-dots
I looked at the diffs, and I think Med has correctly captured my comments.
Thanks!
Adrian
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 15 June 2020 07:10
To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: OpsAWG-Chairs
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-model-automation-fr
Hi Tianran,
Since I did a detailed review during last call, and considering that I
haven't been involved in the production of this document, I guess I can
volunteer.
OK?
Best,
Adrian
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
Sent: 15 June 2020 02:40
To: opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: OpsAWG-Cha
odel-automation-framework-03
Hi Adrian,
Wonderful! Thank you very much.
Cheers,
Tianran
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 5:41 PM
To: Tianran Zhou ; opsawg@ietf.org
Cc: 'OpsAWG-Chairs'
Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-iet
Hi Joe,
I support adoption.
I have an interest in this work from co-chairing L3SM and L2SM, and I have been
attending some of the virtual meetings although I haven't made great
contributions to the work.
It seems to me that this work falls in scope alongside L3NM and I think it is
similarly n
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
