[as a contributor] My only comment on this draft is that I’d prefer it if the “routing-state” tree were moved into another YANG module, so that it could be more easily deprecated when the opstate solution comes. I suggested this before, with regards to rfc6087bis Section 5.23, but that thread seemed to have petered out, but now here we are and my opinion remains the same.
Thanks, Kent From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Date: Friday, August 26, 2016 at 1:54 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016) This is a notice to start a two-week NETMOD WG last call for the document: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 Please indicate your support or concerns by Thursday September 9, 2016. We are not only interested in receiving defect reports, we are equally interested in statements of the form: * I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 and I found no issues * I have implemented the data model in draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 * I am implementing the data model in draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 * I am considering to implement the data model in draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 Of course, these are merely suggestions, folks can provide comments in any form that suits them. Thank you, NETMOD WG Chairs
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
