[Please note I am not on the opsawg list.]
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 07:35:45PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> IDR WG:
>
> The OPSAWG chairs are reviewing the
> draft-li-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-02.txt for WG adoption. Please comment
> on this OPSAWG list and/or IDR list if you feel this draft sho
My original response to IDR and opsawg missed this thread on grow.
I believe most of my concerns are covered in this thread and I don't require
a separate answer. :-)
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:58:32PM +0800, lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com wrote:
> Thank you for you opinion. The extended and large
Authors,
Thanks for accommodating my prior comments on this draft.
I have one final issue to raise with the draft. The information elements
for extended community and large community by nature of their size are of
type octetArray. The draft correctly notes the expected size of each of
these ele
Paolo,
I don't speak for the authors here, just my opinion.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:37:59PM +0100, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> One concern is that this looks a very isolated effort, ie. why communities
> and not as-path? I remember the story of this draft, it comes from field
> needs and that is in
Med,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:19:23PM +, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Thank you for checking the OAM part and for sharing this comment.
>
> As you can read in both sections 4 and 5, this model is ** not a device
> configuration model **. The focus is on aspects that
Med,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:48:43AM +, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Actually, except local-multiplier that we call detection-multiplier, the
> same names are used in both drafts. We can fix that one.
Certainly a start.
> Please note that we are not using the inter
Med,
On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 01:21:03PM +, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
> The IETF LC was actually closed since 2021-08-06.
>
> Even if the IETF LC is closed, the current BFD comments will be part of the
> comments we will be addressing in the next iteration. For your record, we
> h
Benoit,
> On Nov 21, 2024, at 12:22 PM, Benoit Claise
> wrote:
>
> Jeff, at the microphone during the OPSAWG meeting, mentioned the issue of
> evolving/maintaining information models before going to a data model. We are
> not too sure how publishing an information model as RFC (as opposed to
On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 05:37:34PM +0700, Benoit Claise wrote:
> One key message to stress to the community IMO: for the first time I
> believe, an information model is defined in YANG, as mentioned .
:-)
There's obviously some mixed and strong opinions about the use and lifetime
of info models.
