Hi Sue, Since you are referring to RFC 4760, is it the SAFIs that you would like to see defined here? One thing that is different from the IETF style is that if I add these they will not be all upper case like they are in the OC BGP types model.
BTW, what is the target timeframe for an update of the BGP YANG model? I know you had mentioned it was in the works in the IDR meeting. Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 9:15 AM To: 'Lou Berger' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Routing WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types Lou: Let me recheck. I thought there was something relating to the MP-BGP that was not covered. I’ll get back to you by Thursday am. Sue From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:17 AM To: Susan Hares; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Question on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types Hi Sue, I took another look at bgp types and the only thing that jumps out at me as common that isn't already covered is enumeration of protocols (for potential use in route redistribution and interface config). We can certainly consider this if this what you were thinking about. Are there are types you think we overlooked? Lou On March 29, 2017 11:41:25 AM "Susan Hares" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: RTGWG DT: Just curious, did the DT consider BGP routing types? If so, where did you decide BGP routing types were not common routing types? Sue _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected]<mailto:rtgwg%40ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
