Re: [OPSAWG] [coman] FW: New Version Notification for draft-ersue-constrained-mgmt-02.txt

Hi, One point regarding MANET. I believe that it deserves its own document: "MANET network management considerations". Actually, when looking at draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-mib part of the IESG review, one of the outcome was that such a document was required. I cleared my DISCUSS on draft-ietf-mane

[OPSAWG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt

include the two relevant documents 7.2. Relevant Documents - IEEE 802.3.1 Draft - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/ - TBD OPSAWG I-Ds 7.3. Owners - Benoit Claise, Dan Romascanu, Ed Beili (IETF), Howard Frazier (IEEE 802.3) 7.4. Action Items - Dan Romascanu will enter the Sponsor Ballot

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt review

Ed, Here is my draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt review 1. OLD -- EdNote: Replace with the actual RFC number & -- remove this note ::= { mib-2 166 } NEW_ _ -- EdNote: Replace with the actual RFC number & -- remove this note ::= { mib-2 } _ _Consequ

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt review

d, such as RFC 3636, RFC 2668 and RFC 2239. Regards, -E. *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2013 16:14 *To:* Edward Beili *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org *Subject:* draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt review Ed, Here is my draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-00.txt

Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: (An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms) to Informational RFC

draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview authors, Here is my feedback on this document. 1. Is this document in line with http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-trill-oam-req-04? * For example, the following definitions could be reused. Fault: The term Fault refers to an inability to perform a require

Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: (An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms) to Informational RFC

Some more feedback, send on behalf of Al Morton. Regards, Benoit = Hi Benoit, Here are some additional comments, just checking a few things I know a little about. Al -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 1.1. The Building Blocks of OAM ... o Perform

Re: [OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-pularikkal-opsawg-lawful-intercept-spwifi-00.txt

On 19/02/2013 09:03, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 19/02/2013 05:39, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Joel, I think this is a good point. We had few discussions with Fred Baker as well on this aspect. RFC-2804 was written 13 years back, many things have changed since then. The IETF's policy h

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment

Dear all, This following question came up during the draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuring presentation at the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting. Would someone know this reference below? Regards, Benoit. Chris,

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

Dear all, My analysis is that the mechanism described in the draft is a local load-balancing optimization, which doesn't influence the bits on the wire. Note that Curtis had a similar concern during the OPSAWG meeting (see the minutes

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

On 25/04/2013 00:09, Randy Bush wrote: I came to the attention of the Chairs and the ADs during the call for adoption that an IPR disclosure was likely pending on this draft. It has since transpired. The disclosure can be reviewed here. http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=document_se

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis: status

Documents - IEEE 802.3.1 Draft - http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/opsawg/charter/ - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis/ 7.3. Owners - Benoit Claise, Dan Romascanu, Ed Beili (IETF), Howard Frazier (IEEE 802.3) 7.4. Action Items - Dan Romascanu will enter the Sponsor Ballot pool

[OPSAWG] OPS/LMAP chair positions

Dear all, [bcc'ed a couple mailing lists. You might be receiving duplicates] Joel and I are looking for potential WG chair candidates. 1. Specifically for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP ). At this stage, LMAP is still a prop

Re: [OPSAWG] Stepping down

Thanks Chris for your years of service. And let's welcome Warren who accepted to co-chair this WG. Regards, Benoit Greetings all, As you may have noticed, I've been a bit absent as of late, mainly due to work changes. At this point, I don't see the situation calming for the next 6 m

Re: [OPSAWG] SYSLOG architectural issue

On 19/09/2013 15:37, Andrew Feren wrote: On 09/19/2013 08:56 AM, Tom Taylor wrote: On 19/09/2013 8:07 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 07:00:52AM -0400, Tom Taylor wrote: In Behave, we are dealing with a potential logging architecture where Device A generates the conten

[OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-03

Dear authors, - Section 3. CGN Network Deployment Requirements If a service provider is considering a CGN deployment with a provider NAT44 function, there are a number of basic architectural requirements which are of importance. Preliminary architectural requirements may require all

[OPSAWG] CAPWAP work will remain in OPSAWG (as opposed to a short-lived WG)

Dear all, Looking at the different CAPWAP related drafts (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=capwap&rfcs=on&activeDrafts=on&author=&group=&area=&ad=&state=&subState=), there were discussions whether we should keep the CAPWAP work in OPSAWG, or create a short-lived WG dedicated to CA

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-03

t. So what are those additional to? Regards, Benoit Regards, Victor K From: Benoit Claise mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:57:08 +0200 To: <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deploym...@tools.ietf.org>> Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>"

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-03

. Regards, Benoit Regards, Victor K From: Benoit Claise mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:27:56 +0200 To: Victor Kuarsingh mailto:vic...@jvknet.com>> Cc: <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deploym...@tools.ietf.org>>, "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:op

[OPSAWG] OPS guidance to the non-OPS community

Dear all, During the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting, I will be addressing one issue that is now on the top of my mind: OPS guidance to the non-OPS community. Problem 1: How do we share our OPS knowledge? How do we advice which OPS tools (NETCONF, SNMP, AAA, ping, syslog, IPFIX, etc...) the community

Re: [OPSAWG] OPS guidance to the non-OPS community

olve ... for OPS. Regards, Benoit Wes George -Original Message- From: opsawg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:06 PM To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Dave Thaler Subject: [OPSAWG] OPS guidance to the non-OPS community Dear

[OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis

Ed, all, First of all, as mentioned by Dan Romascanu in his write-up (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis/shepherdwriteup/), please correct this: (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis

Hi, The write-up has been updated. Regards, Benoit I agree with Ed's comment about the updated security considerations section. Regards, Dan *From:*Edward Beili [mailto:edwa...@actelis.com] *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 10:24 PM *To:* Benoit Claise *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org; Roma

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis

has it? David Harrington ietf...@comcast.net <mailto:ietf...@comcast.net> +1-603-828-1401 *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Edward Beili *Sent:* Monday, November 25, 2013 5:39 PM *To:* Benoit Claise; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [OPSAWG]

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing: new version needed to address the IETF LC comments

Dear draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing authors, I started to AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (Sorry for the delay btw). Then I reviewed the WG LC feedback (email from Melinda, "[OPSAWG] WG last call for "Mechanisms for Optimal LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilizat

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-04.txt

Victor, Thanks for the new version. Except this editor change (twice local), everything is fine: Section 1. Introduction OLD: To face this challenge, operators may need to deploy CGN (Carrier Grade NAT) as described in [RFC6888] to help extend the connectivity matrix once

[OPSAWG] Fwd: updated by Amy Vezza

Congrats the Ed, the document shepherd Dan Romascanu, the OPSAWG chairs, and the everybody involved. Regards, Benoit Original Message Subject: updated by Amy Vezza Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:30:49 -0800 From: DraftTracker Mail System To: Benoit Claise

[OPSAWG] Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011

Dear Ed, The OPSAWG charter says: (D) Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011. Considering RFC 4663 "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG" as an reference, the following pieces of information would the foundation for the docu

Re: [OPSAWG] Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011

Ed, Benoit, I wouldn't call it focusing, but since I committed I would have to do it. Thanks. Any time estimation? Regards, Benoit. Thanks for reminding me. Regards, -E. *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 18:34 *To:* Edward Beil

Re: [OPSAWG] Preliminary OPSAWG agenda.

Dear all, In order to avoid cross-posting, I replied to the opsarea mailer only (the discussion takes place there). Follow the discussion at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ops-area/current/msg01150.html, if you're not subscribed to opsarea. Regards, Benoit warren and any other friendl

Re: [OPSAWG] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08.txt

Elwyn, Thanks for your review. I don't plan to reply for the authors (btw, not sure I've seen a reply to this), and but a few clarification questions in line, to engage the discussion. I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Re: [OPSAWG] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview-08.txt

Elwyn, Please disregard this email. I wrongly read the date: 22/01/2014 instead of 22/01/2013. My understanding is that the points have been addressed in the version 13. Regards, Benoit Elwyn, Thanks for your review. I don't plan to reply for the authors (btw, not sure I've seen a reply to

[OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing

Dear authors, Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing - Section 1: Networks extensively use link aggregation groups (LAG) [802.1AX] and equal cost multi-paths (ECMP) [RFC 2991] as techniques for capacity scaling. For the problems addressed by this document, n

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: RFC 7124 on Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB

On 22/02/2014 01:47, Melinda Shore wrote: 5066bis has just been published. Many thanks to Ed, and to the reviewers who put so much time into this. +1 Regards, Benoit Melinda Original Message Subject: [OPSAWG] RFC 7124 on Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interface

Re: [OPSAWG] Milestones changed for opsawg WG

Hi Dan, I believe it makes sense. Regards, B. Hi, There are a number of documents already adopted by the OPSAWG as WG documents that do not show up in the milestones. For example the VMM MIB, the *coman*, the *capwap* documents. Should not these also be added in the milestones list? Regards

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response)

Hi Anoop, Please post a new draft version, and I'll review the diffs. Some more answers in-line. Regards, Benoit Hi Benoit, Thanks for the detailed and careful review. Comments inline. Anoop On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Benoit Claise <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com

[OPSAWG] OPSAWG liaison to the IEEE 802.11 WG on new work on CAPWAP

Dear all, FYI, as discussed during the OPSAWG meeting. https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1312/ Regards, Benoit ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response)

Hi Anoop, Thanks for the new draft version. I removed some of the points On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Benoit Claise <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: - A number of routers support sampling techniques such as sFlow [sFlow- v5, sFlow-LAG], PSAMP [RFC

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response)

On 14/04/2014 19:09, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: Hi Benoit, I will work on the editorials shortly and I'm removing those from the discussion. See below: On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Benoit Claise <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi Anoop, Thanks for the new draft

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response)

Anoop, Benoit, Please see inline. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Benoit Claise <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: On 14/04/2014 19:09, Anoop Ghanwani wrote: Hi Benoit, I will work on the editorials shortly and I'm removing those from the discussion. See b

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response)

.com] *On Behalf Of *Anoop Ghanwani *Sent:* Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:11 AM *To:* Benoit Claise *Cc:* ramki Krishnan; opsawg@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing (draft response) Thanks Benoit. We'll figure out how to account for this in the d

[OPSAWG] Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011.

Dear all, We've been having this entry in the charter for some time now. (D) Documenting the list of RFCs transitioned to the IEEE 802.3.1-2011. Considering RFC 4663 "Transferring MIB Work from IETF Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG" as an reference, the following pieces of information

Re: [OPSAWG] PCAPNG standardisation

Hi Michael, You wrote: One of the most accepted packet interchange formats is the one defined by libpcap, which is rather old and is lacking in functionality for more modern applications particularly from the extensibility point of view. Can you please expand. Regards, Benoit On 2

Re: [OPSAWG] Read-write access in VMM-MIB

Dear Hirochika, Very sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > Dear Joel and Benoit, > > Thank you. > > Since Joel has invited Benoit, another AD of OPS AREA, to this discussion, > I summarize my question for clarity as follows: > > The IESG statement (*1) encourages to remove read-write acce

[OPSAWG] Fwd: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-00

ren Kumari; Pat Thaler; Benoit Claise; Howard Frazier; Adam Healey Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-00 Hi Dan, Thank you for bringing this to my attention - I'll personally review this today - and will return comments or an ack. Best re

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: RE: Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-00

getting it done so quickly. big + 1 Regards, B. W On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, Forwarded with permission. draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231 review from David Law, from an IEEE point of view. Regards, Benoit -Original Message- Hi Dan, I have

Re: [OPSAWG] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01

Dear all, Now sent to IETF LC. Thanks to Tom and Dan for closing this work item in a record time. Regards, Benoit Warren Kumari has requested publication of draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01 as Informational on behalf of the OPSAWG working group. Please verify the document's state at h

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac: from AD review to IETF Last Call requested

Dear all, First of, sorry for the delay in progressing this document. The delay has been abnormally high on my side. Now the good news. No particular remarks on this well-written document. The new state is now IETF last call requested. Regards, Benoit (OPS AD) ___

[OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-03

Dear authors, The CAPWAP Data channel carries the IEEE 802.11 management traffic (like IEEE 802.11 Action Frames). The station's data frames are locally bridged, i.e., not carried over the CAPWAP data channel. The station's data frames are handled by the Access Router. Data Channel

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-03

*From:* Benoit Claise (bclaise) *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2014 1:51 PM *To:* draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tun...@tools.ietf.org *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org *Subject:* AD review: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-03 Dear authors, The CAPWAP Data channel carries the IEEE 802.11

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship

Dear CAPWAP authors, After the draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information presentation at the last IETF meeting, I've been wondering about the relationship between the two drafts: - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel provides the tunnel types Note:this draft is currently in AD review, s

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship

o.com>> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>>, "draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-informat...@tools.ietf.org <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-informat...@tools.ietf.org>" <m

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship

and have draft-xue focus exclusively on L2TP extensions and move it on a fast track. IMO, this is a reasonably split. I'm also happy to provide the text for the above encap modes and ensure the changes do not delay the publication. Regards Sri From: "Benoit Claise (bcla

[OPSAWG] OPSAWG WG transition to Joel

Dear all, In order to execute the IESG YANG Model Work Redistribution plan (see https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg90926.html), Joel will become the OPSAWG responsible AD. Practically, this implies that: - Joel will be AD reviewing draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-probstate-reqs-03

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship

Dear draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information authors, Can you please a draft version according to Sri's plan below. Regards, Benoit wfm On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: On 03/12/2014 08:59, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 7448 on MIB Transfer from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 WG

Thank you Tom and Dan for driving this effort. Regards, Benoit A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 7448 Title: MIB Transfer from the IETF to the IEEE 802.3 WG Author: T. Taylor, Ed.,

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship

/20/15, 5:40 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" wrote: Dear draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information authors, Can you please a draft version according to Sri's plan below. Regards, Benoit wfm On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Benoit Claise

Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS+ RFC: Regarding submission

For information, the draft is at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs/ Regards, B; Please note the following concerning the document content: The majority of the document is a cleaned and tidied refresh of the original draft. However, included in the document is a new fea

[OPSAWG] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: (with COMMENT)

On 23/06/2015 22:42, Ben Campbell wrote: Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-vmm-mib-03: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductor

Re: [OPSAWG] [OPSAWG and OPSAREA] Call for agenda items for Prague.

Dear all, Here is the agenda so far. -TACACS+: draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-00 (OPSAWG, duration to be confirmed) -YANG Model Coordination Group Update (Benoit, 15 min): -DNSOP activities (Joel, 10 min) Any other requests? Regards, Benoi

Re: [OPSAWG] [OPSAWG and OPSAREA] Call for agenda items for Prague.

Here is the updated agenda -TACACS+: draft-dahm-opsawg-tacacs-00 (OPSAWG, 15 min + Q/A) -YANG Model Coordination Group Update (Benoit, 15 min): -DNSOP activities (Joel, 10 min) Regards, Benoit Dear all, Here is the agenda so far. -TA

Re: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)

) for SNMPv3". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7630&eid=4509 -- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Johannes Merkle Date Reported: 2015-1

Re: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7630 (4509)

Tom, Original Message - From: "Benoit Claise" To: "RFC Errata System" ; ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:23 Dear all, The facts: - The MIB doctors advised not to publish MIB modules under snmpModules any longer. IANA updated the registry inf

[OPSAWG] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-new-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however

Re: [OPSAWG] [Errata Verified] RFC7666 (4710)

a_search.php?rfc=7666&eid=4710 -- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: jean-marie Kubek Date Reported: 2016-06-15 Verified by: Benoit Claise (IESG) Section: 6.2 IANA MIB Original Text - IANAStorageMediaType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTIO

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-wu-opsawg-service-model-explained-00.txt

Qin, Explaining the difference between a service and network element YANG modules is the objective of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification/ Abstract The YANG [RFC6020] data modeling language is currently being considered for a wide variety of app

[OPSAWG] IPPROV BoF was declined

Dear all, Let me inform you that the IPPROV BoF was declined by the IESG/IAB. Even if the IETF discussion started three IETF meetings ago (draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-mud: YANG validation

Dear draft-ietf-opsawg-mud authors, A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model has been posted, and it now passes validation. It failed previously with:     /ietf-packet-fie...@2017-09-01.yang:118: warning: The 'must' expression will fail: the node 'upper-port' from module 'ietf-access-c

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Dear all, Warren asked me to review this document part of the AD review. I know we're in last call right now: Whether the comments are part of AD review or IETF LC comment doesn't matter at this point in time. Here is my feedback. Figure 3: Network configuration model is a brand new term that

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Hi Adrian, > In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be renamed to RFC 8199 > "Network Element YANG module" (this is what you did in figure 4 anyway) I believe we are separating the "device configuration model" that is used to talk to an NE, and a "network configuration m

Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Hi Adrian, Some of this has been discussed on YANG doctors list some time ago. Bad luck, before it was archived. Good news, I explained the conclusions on the NETMOD mailing list. See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=netmod&q=Terminology+%3D%3E+YANG+module+versus+YANG+data+m

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-03.txt

Hi, Great. This YANG module now correctly validates and is NMDA compliant. https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-l2vpn-...@2017-08-25.yang Regards, Benoit A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item o

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-06.txt

Dear all, Historically, the MIB doctor reviews would happen during IETF LC. Because YANG was new, we started early YANG doctor reviews. Those reviews don't have to occur in sequence, i.e. before the IETF LC starts. In fact, at some point in time in the future (when the YANG knowledge will be w

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Hi Joe, Just in case it was not clear, I obviously support the adoption call (as a contributor) Regards, Benoit On 8/18/2022 10:14 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Hello, WG. We’d like to begin a two week call for adoption of this work.  Even as an individual draft it has already received s

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Hi Med, Thanks for your comments. I visited IANA in Philly to validate this propose, but we could re-evaluate & discuss about it. We need a registry because just telling that we take the value from https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#segment-routing-header-

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

e that the spec has to indicate “Data Type Semantics:  flags” for that IE. The same would apply for the srhSegmentEndpointBehavior IE. Please let me know if I’m missing something. Thanks. Maybe we speak cross purposes. Shall we set up a quick call? Regards, Benoit Cheers, Med *De :*Ben

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, Thanks for your review. And sorry for the delay: I was not too sure how to react to this review. Another review after WGLC, to be integrated in IETF LC? Document shepherd review needed to addressed for the document to progress? Anyway, see inline. Attached you will see diff with s

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, On 9/15/2022 12:19 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: Michael Richardson wrote: > I have read draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture at the > request of a few people. This is not part of any directorate review > (that I remember, or that shows up in my review li

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Hi Michael, See inline. On 9/22/2022 2:10 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: > Thanks for your review. > And sorry for the delay: I was not too sure how to react to this > review. Another review after WGLC, to be integrated in IETF LC? > D

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

ptember 19, 2022 2:22 PM *To:* Benoit Claise ; Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 ; jclarke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org *Cc:* pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr *Subject:* RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh Hi Benoît, Thank you for the follow-up. Actually, the more I

[OPSAWG] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Dear IPFIX doctors, (IANA), We would like to get your feedback regarding the IANA section in draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01. Especially, the two following information elements: srhFlagsIPv6: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01#section-5.1 srhSegmentEn

Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1240167] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Hi Amanda, IPFIX IE doctors, See inline. On 9/30/2022 4:58 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: Hi Benoit, all, Dear IPFIX doctors, (IANA), We would like to get your feedback regarding the IANA section in draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01. Especially, the two following information elements: srhF

Re: [OPSAWG] [IANA #1240167] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

Hi Amanda, Very good, we will produce a new version of the draft with this proposal below. Regards, Benoit On 10/11/2022 3:00 AM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote: Hi Benoit, I took this to our technical director, James Mitchell, and he wrote, "These segment URLs [ipfix.xhtml#something] are not g

Re: [OPSAWG] [Ie-doctors] [IANA #1240167] IANA question regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-01

but I don’t see a reason to oppose it.  Also if we don’t try new things then nothing changes. Thanks and regards, Benoit -Andrew *From: *ie-doctors on behalf of Benoit Claise *Date: *Thursday, October 6, 2022 at 11:30 AM *To: *iana-iss...@iana.org *Cc: *opsawg@ietf.org , mohamed.b

Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00.txt

as -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 3:32 PM To: Alex Feng ; Alex Huang Feng ; Benoit Claise ; Graf Thomas, INI-NET-TCZ-ZH1 Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry-00.txt A new version of I-D,

Re: [OPSAWG] MINUTES: IETF 115 OPSAWG/Ops Area meeting

Hi Joe, Regarding: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data There are two distinct parts, which should be combined IMO. 1. * Alex Clemm: What is different from using the subscription ID from YANG Push? * Benoit: If you lose access to the device, how will you backtrack to get th

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh

Hi, "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" Regards, Benoit On 11/30/2022 1:55 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Authors and contributors, please respond *on-list* as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. Please state either: "No, I'm not a

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Hi Med, On 11/30/2022 4:12 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi all, This version addresses all the comments raised in my previous review of the document. I have only very few comments: * Section “5.9.  srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type”: please add the pointer to the IANA registry unde

Re: [OPSAWG] Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Hi Alex, Sorry for the delay in replying. You are right in the sense we don't define new piece of information. I stressed it on the first slide during the IETF 115 •Goal is not to expose new information via YANG but rather to define what needs to be kept as metadata (or Data Manifest) t

Re: [OPSAWG] Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest

Hi Alex, On 11/28/2022 8:30 PM, Alexander Clemm wrote: I find this response confusing.  To me this reads that if a non-IETF telemetry feature is used, the data manifest would in fact be up to the implementation i.e. proprietary.  However, it would seem to me that to be useful, the informatio

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, On 12/12/2022 2:07 PM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [OPSAWG] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Paul, Thanks for your review. On 12/15/2022 1:01 AM, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote: Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses

Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG LC: Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)

Hi Rob, Do we get the green light to request the IANA early allocation [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7120#section-2] since there are multiple implementations already? Regards, Benoit On 12/15/2022 9:32 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: Closing this WG LC out.  A great deal of sup

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR Poll on draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry

Dear OPSAWG, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Regards, Benoit On 12/22/2022 3:55 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi Authors and Contributors, Accompany with the WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list. Please respond if you are aware

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR Poll on draft-tgraf-opsawg-ipfix-on-path-telemetry

Dear OPSAWG, I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. Regards, Benoit On 12/22/2022 3:55 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: Hi Authors and Contributors, Accompany with the WG adoption on this draft, I'd like all authors and contributors to confirm on the list. Please respond if you are aware

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Roman, The new IETF draft version v13 has been posted with the changes discussed below. Thanks for your review. Regards, Benoit On 12/15/2022 2:14 AM, Jean Quilbeuf wrote: Hi Roman, Thanks for your review, You will find our answer below. Best, Jean -Original Message- From: Rom

Re: [OPSAWG] Secdir telechat review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12

Thanks Christian. Regards, Benoit On 12/20/2022 8:01 PM, Christian Huitema via Datatracker wrote: Reviewer: Christian Huitema Review result: Ready My review of version 11 of this draft was making a number of suggestions. These suggestions have largely been addressed in the version 12 of the dr

Re: [OPSAWG] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, Thanks for your review. We addressed all your comments in the newly posted version v13. Regards, Benoit On 12/12/2022 6:22 PM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: No Objectio

Re: [OPSAWG] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi Lars, Thanks for your review. We addressed all your comments in the newly posted version v13. Regards, Benoit On 12/12/2022 12:55 PM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker wrote: Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: No Objectio

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt

Title : Export of Segment Routing over IPv6 Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Authors : Thomas Graf Benoit Claise Pierre Francois Filename: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-05.txt Pages : 28

  1   2   3   >