Thank you John for updating the draft. It looks all comments were addressed. I will move forward this draft to WG last call shortly.
cheers, --satoru On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 12:53 AM Kaippallimalil John < [email protected]> wrote: > Thank you, Med, Mahesh, Satoru and all for your feedback and reviews. > > The changes requested by Med in the reviews of both the drafts are > implemented now. > The two draft approach that was agreed as the way forward in the last dmm > meeting makes sense to me as an author. > The example in [draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01] adapted from A.7 of > [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit] adds value, as it was not there > with the old/combined dmm draft. > But I would be OK to proceed as the chairs/ADs advise. > > Pointers to the submission diffs: > [draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22]: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 > > [draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01]: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01 > > Regards, > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 9:42 PM > > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; opsawg <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: [DMM] Re: [OPSAWG]Re: (request to review) FW: New Versions - > > draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-21 and draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas- > > 00 > > > > Thanks Mahesh-san, please discuss with your co-AD and in the ops area > > whether an informational draft or RFC carries YANG modules with ietf > prefix or > > not. > > > > I think that a consistent view from OPSADs and the ops area for that > helps to > > avoid confusions, not only for dmm, but also all other WGs in the IETF. > > > > cheers, > > --satoru > > > > > On Sep 18, 2025, at 19:07, Mahesh Jethanandani > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Saturn-san, > > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Sep 18, 2025, at 11:16 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > >> > > >> I would add a background on this sprit. During the last meeting an > OPSAD > > who gave us his feedback, like it is ok to include the YANG module in > the INFO > > draft. However another AD gave us opposite feedback. So the chairs and > the > > authors decided to sprit the draft, which looks more likely and safer > way. > > > > > > My take (as one of the OPS AD) is that it is ok for an informational > draft to > > carry a YANG module. While it might be safe, if the document is being > split just > > for that reason, it is unnecessary overhead. We should be making it > easier, not > > harder to publish documents especially those that contain YANG modules. > > > > > > Just my 2 cents (1 if you count inflation 😀) > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > > > [email protected] > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dmm mailing list -- [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
