Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Job Snijders]

Dear all,

There was good support to adopt this draft as working group document.
Thank you all for your input.

Authors - please upload a -00 version named "draft-ietf-grow-bmp-yang-00"
and I'll approve it and link it to the previous individual submission.
Thanks!

Kind regards,

Job

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:20:18PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi GROW,
> 
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
> 
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
> 
> Title: BMP YANG Module
> Abstract: 
>This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
> 
> The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
> 
> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
> draft!
> 
> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[tom petch]

In line gets a bit messy with this webmail

From: Camilo Cardona 
Sent: 29 September 2022 11:57

First of all, thanks a lot for your thoughtful review of the model. Some 
answers  next:

On 26 Aug 2022, at 11:23, tom petch 
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:

From: GROW mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)


Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they 
are my second port of call in a review.

 We’ll take a look at those


one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
misread - hyphen-minus is better.

 I couldn’t find the identifier in the model (the text does reference 
“all_peers” erroneously, we’llf fix that one. We’ll use hyphen-minus  in the 
identities.
 I refer to hypen_or_minus, bmp_session etc

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

 It was not indented. I guess that having the zone ip makes sense for 
corner cases, but I have no experience with ip zones. Does anybody have an 
educated answer?

 this is one for the WG.  I was pointing out that zone is the default, you 
need nozone if you do not want the zone.  zone is only ever local and for some 
that is key - printers, for most not needed..

 by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
none of which is this one.  Suggest  , ,  etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

 ack to the 3 previous points

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which 
is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

  Searching for that discussion in opsawg you mentioned, I realised that 
the final OPSAWG draft removed the idty from the identities. Let us iterate on 
this. Naming is always tricky, specially with this concepts that are not 
simple, so we might need a couple of attempts.

  Nah, naming is easy - just do not overload an identifier with all the 
possible semantics especially those that are already explicit higher in the 
hierarchy e.g.
container bmp_session {
 uses bmp-session-options!
I suspect that most instances of 'bmp-' are redundant - what else is in the 
model? - and if you are already in that part of the model that deals with 
session, then session is too and so on!
The identifiers of identity are an exception since they often are stand-alone 
with no hierarchy so bmp is helpful and a small number, 2-3(-4), of short 
words, acronyms or syllables I think better than lots of two-letter.

Tom Petch

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
Range

 Ack the the previous two points

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, 
but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, 
never made it to RFC.

 The BGP model is still in active development, as far as I know. And yes, 
since we will rely on that model, we hope that one continues to become a RFC in 
not so many years...

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders 
mailto:job=40fastly@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title: BMP YANG Module
Abstract:
 This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
 Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
 a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
draft!

WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow


___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Camilo Cardona]

Hello Tom,

First of all, thanks a lot for your thoughtful review of the model. Some 
answers  next:

> On 26 Aug 2022, at 11:23, tom petch  wrote:
> 
> From: GROW mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf 
> of Jeffrey Haas mailto:jh...@pfrc.org>>
> Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25
> 
> I support adoption.
> 
> The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
> other working groups for a few years. :-)
> 
> 
> Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..
> 
> References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
> references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so 
> they are my second port of call in a review.

 We’ll take a look at those

> 
> one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
> misread - hyphen-minus is better. 

 I couldn’t find the identifier in the model (the text does reference 
“all_peers” erroneously, we’llf fix that one. We’ll use hyphen-minus  in the 
identities.
> 
> ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

 It was not indented. I guess that having the zone ip makes sense for 
corner cases, but I have no experience with ip zones. Does anybody have an 
educated answer?

> 
>  by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
> none of which is this one.  Suggest  , ,  etc
> 
> BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
> are lower case AFAICT.
> 
> revision date is OOD

 ack to the 3 previous points 
> 
> identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty 
> which is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the 
> identifier:-)

  Searching for that discussion in opsawg you mentioned, I realised that 
the final OPSAWG draft removed the idty from the identities. Let us iterate on 
this. Naming is always tricky, specially with this concepts that are not 
simple, so we might need a couple of attempts. 
> 
> 'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?
> 
> port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
> Range

 Ack the the previous two points
> 
> More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes 
> sense, but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some 
> time ago, never made it to RFC.

 The BGP model is still in active development, as far as I know. And yes, 
since we will rely on that model, we hope that one continues to become a RFC in 
not so many years...
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi GROW,
>> 
>> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
>> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
>> 
>> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
>> internet-draft should be adopted.
>> 
>> Title: BMP YANG Module
>> Abstract:
>>  This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>>  Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>>  a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
>> 
>> The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
>> 
>> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
>> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
>> draft!
>> 
>> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Job
>> 
>> ___
>> GROW mailing list
>> GROW@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> 
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
> 
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow 
> 
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Pierre Francois]

Job, dear WG,

Support.

Regards,

Pierre.

Le jeu. 25 août 2022 à 16:20, Job Snijders 
a écrit :

> Hi GROW,
>
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
>
> Title: BMP YANG Module
> Abstract:
>This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
>
> The Internet-Draft can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
>
> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
> draft!
>
> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Tianran Zhou]

Hi Job and the WG,

I support the working group adoption of this draft.
I think this is both necessary and useful work for BMP.

Best,
Tianran 

-Original Message-
From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 10:20 PM
To: grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 
15/Sep/2022)

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group could 
consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this 
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title: BMP YANG Module
Abstract: 
   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be adopted 
by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this draft!

WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[tom petch]

p.p.s.

From: GROW  on behalf of tom petch 
Sent: 26 August 2022 17:17

p.s.

From: GROW  on behalf of tom petch 
Sent: 26 August 2022 10:23
From: GROW  on behalf of Jeffrey Haas 
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)


Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they 
are my second port of call in a review.

one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
misread - hyphen-minus is better.

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

 by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
none of which is this one.  Suggest  , ,  etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which 
is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
Range

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, 
but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, 
never made it to RFC.


ps just saw a YANG doctor review from last month for opsawg sap saying he 
really does not like 'idty' and find it confusing.  Amen to that



Make that opsawg service assurance yang, not opsawg sap, where idty raised an 
objection which I see has now been changed..

And add a reference in this I-D to RFC8340 for the YANG tree diagram.

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders  
> wrote:
>
> Hi GROW,
>
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Ben Maddison]

Hi all,

On 08/25, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi GROW,
> 
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

I support adoption.

Cheers,

Ben


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[tom petch]

ps


From: GROW  on behalf of tom petch 
Sent: 26 August 2022 10:23
From: GROW  on behalf of Jeffrey Haas 
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)


Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they 
are my second port of call in a review.

one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
misread - hyphen-minus is better.

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

 by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
none of which is this one.  Suggest  , ,  etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which 
is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
Range

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, 
but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, 
never made it to RFC.


ps just saw a YANG doctor review from last month for opsawg sap saying he 
really does not like 'idty' and find it confusing.  Amen to that 

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders  
> wrote:
>
> Hi GROW,
>
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
>
> Title: BMP YANG Module
> Abstract:
>   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
>
> The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
>
> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
> draft!
>
> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[tom petch]

From: GROW  on behalf of Jeffrey Haas 
Sent: 25 August 2022 15:25

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)


Yes but with room for improvement :-(  Nothing to stop adoption  but ..

References seem to lack 1191, 8529, 8671, 9069, tcp-client-server, tcpm-yang; 
references tell me whether or not I should expect to understand an I-D so they 
are my second port of call in a review.

one identifier has an underscore - legal but generally a bad idea, easy to 
misread - hyphen-minus is better. 

ip address uses the format with a zone; is this intended?

 by convention means  this I-D  - here it is used to mean a number of I-D 
none of which is this one.  Suggest  , ,  etc

BCP14 boiler plate is included but all appearances of 'must' and 'should'
are lower case AFAICT.

revision date is OOD

identity identifiers get a bit cumbersome - e.g. bmp-ni-types-all-ni-idty which 
is about sending updates which I would not have guessed from the identifier:-)

'waits for the connection to start the connection'  ?

port 27716 is one that can be assigned - better to use one from the Private 
Range

More generally, the I-D is heavily dependent on the BGP one, which makes sense, 
but I am conscious that a previous effort to model BGP, albeit some time ago, 
never made it to RFC.

Tom Petch


-- Jeff


> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders  
> wrote:
>
> Hi GROW,
>
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
>
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
>
> Title: BMP YANG Module
> Abstract:
>   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
>
> The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
>
> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
> draft!
>
> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Thomas.Graf]

Hi GROW,

As one of the co-authors I support the adoption of the draft.

Best wishes
Thomas

-Original Message-
From: GROW  On Behalf Of Job Snijders
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 4:20 PM
To: grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 
15/Sep/2022)

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group could 
consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this 
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title: BMP YANG Module
Abstract: 
   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang%2Fdata=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C0121b861cba14bea189c08da86a4fe06%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637970340441584489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=Mv1h%2B3R0WK4D4RpWZOqPhETi5EUZluTo2HE6FDmdYAw%3Dreserved=0

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be adopted 
by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this draft!

WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgrowdata=05%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C0121b861cba14bea189c08da86a4fe06%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C0%7C0%7C637970340441584489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7Csdata=H3cqVWMqxBrv8DB%2FvUNoTvh%2FGWGHk7SEa8DGpcJ9SyI%3Dreserved=0

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Re: [GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Jeffrey Haas]

I support adoption.

The draft's YANG is already in better shape than some stuff that's been in 
other working groups for a few years. :-)

-- Jeff


> On Aug 25, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Job Snijders  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi GROW,
> 
> At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
> could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.
> 
> This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
> internet-draft should be adopted.
> 
> Title: BMP YANG Module
> Abstract: 
>   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
>   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
>   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.
> 
> The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/
> 
> Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
> adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
> draft!
> 
> WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Job
> 
> ___
> GROW mailing list
> GROW@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

[GROW] Working Group Adoption Call: draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang (Ends 15/Sep/2022)

[Job Snijders]

Hi GROW,

At the IETF 114 GROW session Paolo asked whether this working group
could consider adoption for draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang.

This message is a request to the group for feedback on whether this
internet-draft should be adopted.

Title: BMP YANG Module
Abstract: 
   This document proposes a YANG module for BMP (BGP Monitoring
   Protocol) configuration and monitoring. A complementary RPC triggers
   a refresh of the session of a BMP station.

The Internet-Draft can be found here: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cptb-grow-bmp-yang/

Please share with the mailing list if you are think this work should be
adopted by GROW, willing to review and/or otherwise contribute to this
draft!

WG Adoption call ends September 15th, 2022.

Kind regards,

Job

___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow