-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 1:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan);
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG
module
Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It would be great if we can receive a status update on the Entity YANG
> model from the design team.
The design team is waiting for the WG to decide on adoption of the
document. Last time this was discussed I think the chairs said that
the WG did not have any cycles for new work until current work was
finished, but I'll leave this to the chairs to answer.
There are actually quite a few drafts to consider when it is time to
add more work to the WG; "mount", "opstate",
draft-entitydt-netmod-entity, draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang,
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang,
draft-lear-ietf-netmod-acl-dnsname, draft-vallin-alarm-yang-module to
name a few. I guess we need to prioritize.
/martin
> And a milestone on the NETMOD charter would also make sense.
>
> Regards, Benoit
> > Is there a status update on ietf-entity please? I don't see it as a
> > milestone in the charter but maybe I don't know where to look.
> >
> > Message received re YANG 1.1. All BBF YANG will use YANG 1.1.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > William
> >
> >> On 15 Dec 2015, at 10:17, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, let's do it. Tom, or one of the other chairs - you need to run
> >> this.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 9:18 PM
> >>> To: Nadeau Thomas; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> >>> Cc: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity
> >>> YANG
> >>> module
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I personally don’t see anything that prevents this.
> >>> Same opinion here.
> >>>
> >>> Regards, Benoit
> >>>> —Tom
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 13, 2015:6:56 AM, at 6:56 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Concerning the 'draft status' - anything prevents the wg from
running
> >>>>> a
> >>> short consensus call and adding this item to the netmod milestones?
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Nadeau
> >>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 4:27 PM
> >>>>>> To: William Lupton
> >>>>>> Cc: [email protected]
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-
entity
> >>>>>> YANG module
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dependance on 1.1 should not be an issue as that is almost
ready to
> >>>>>> be approved. You should be building your model to comply with
the 1.1
> >>> rules.
> >>>>>> —Tom
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 11, 2015:8:00 AM, at 8:00 AM, William Lupton
> >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Broadband Forum would like to use the ietf-entity YANG
module
> >>>>>> (currently draft-entitydt-netmod-entity) for equipment
management
> >>>>>> but we are a bit concerned about its draft status and its
dependence
> >>>>>> on
> >>> YANG 1.1.
> >>>>>> Any advice or reassurance?
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> William
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> netmod mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >>> 3A__www.ietf.org_mail
