On 10/7/19 7:31 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> Questions to WG:
>>
>> 1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
>
> I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
> wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd.
>
>> 2)
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
My suggestion was a link the proper IANA registries, which _are_ updated
by other RFCs to place things into obsolete/deprecated and receive new
entries based on other new RFCs.
As you said the implementors need to go to the IANA/YANG module place, a
On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 10:03 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2019, at 09:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >
> > > They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of
> > > the module from this page:
> > >
> > >
On 10 Oct 2019, at 09:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of
>> the module from this page:
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
>
> You are
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>> They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of
>> the module from this page:
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
>
> You are asking for text to go into an
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
They should not actually be reading the RFC but get the latest revision of the
module from this page:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml
You are asking for text to go into an RFC, which you then say they
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Wouldn't this define what you need, without hardcoding all the valid
values from the snapshot of the IANA registry?
This would instruct the implementor to go to the IANA registry, notice
there what is obsoleted/deprecated, and they will know they
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
>>> Speaking for myself, as long as we are not populating RFCs with
>>> obsoleted DNS data or just create RFC with copies of IANA registries,
>>> I'm fine with helping on a document. But not if it is a blind copy
>>> and paste
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> (added IESG to CC:)
>
>>> We don't want to have to update the RFC every time the registry is updated.
>>> Could the RFC just describe exactly how to to convert the registry to YANG?
>>> Then it won't need updates.
>>
>> Only
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Speaking for myself, as long as we are not populating RFCs with
obsoleted DNS data or just create RFC with copies of IANA registries,
I'm fine with helping on a document. But not if it is a blind copy
and paste from IANA (whether at DNSOP or OPSAWG)
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
(added IESG to CC:)
We don't want to have to update the RFC every time the registry is updated.
Could the RFC just describe exactly how to to convert the registry to YANG?
Then it won't need updates.
Only the initial version of the YANG module will
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 09:47 -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:23 AM Normen Kowalewski wrote:
> > Dear Paul, Benno,
> >
> > thanks for your replies.
> >
> > > On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:31, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> > >
> >
Errmmm, sincere apologies for that typo.
I did think it is worth *noting* that one author is one of these experts
himself, quite the opposite of *nothing*.
BR, Normen
> On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:23, Normen Kowalewski wrote:
>
> It’s also worth nothing that one author is one of these experts
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:23 AM Normen Kowalewski
wrote:
> Dear Paul, Benno,
>
> thanks for your replies.
>
> > On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:31, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> >
> >> Questions to WG:
> >>
> >> 1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
> >
>
Dear Paul, Benno,
thanks for your replies.
> On 7. Oct 2019, at 19:31, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> Questions to WG:
>>
>> 1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
>
> I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
> wherever
Paul Wouters writes:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> Questions to WG:
>>
>> 1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
>
> I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
> wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd.
>
>> 2) follow-up work on YANG
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Questions to WG:
1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd.
2) follow-up work on YANG data models for DNS servers in DNSOP?
av Lhotka
> Cc: Benno Overeinder; DNSOP WG
> Betreff: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions:
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
>
> Dear DNSWG,
>
> I also support the adoption.
>
> Normen Kowalewski
>
>> On 22. Jul 2019, at 20:13, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
&g
: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Normen Kowalewski
Gesendet: Dienstag, 23. Juli 2019 00:04
An: Ladislav Lhotka
Cc: Benno Overeinder; DNSOP WG
Betreff: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoptions:
draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
Dear DNSWG,
I also support the adoption.
Normen
Hi,
has there been any conclusion regarding this adoption call? We tried to address
the concerns that the YANG module is a snapshot of IANA registries, but I am
not sure whether we succeeded or what should be done instead. So let me
summarize:
- After the publication of this document, IANA
Hello DNSOP,
On 7/15/19 10:00 PM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for:
> draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang
I support adoption of this draft, the idea is non-controversial. I
believe the comments that have been made can be worked out and I believe
the YANG/NETCONF
Apologies I meant, DNSOP WG of course, well - its late down here...
> On 23. Jul 2019, at 00:03, Normen Kowalewski wrote:
>
> Dear DNSWG,
>
> I also support the adoption.
>
> Normen Kowalewski
>
>> On 22. Jul 2019, at 20:13, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>> Benno Overeinder writes:
>>
>>>
Dear DNSWG,
I also support the adoption.
Normen Kowalewski
> On 22. Jul 2019, at 20:13, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> Benno Overeinder writes:
>
>> Dear DNSOP WG, The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record
>> Types, draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented
Benno Overeinder writes:
Dear DNSOP WG,
The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types,
draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented at
the IETF 103 and IETF 104.
During the IETF 104 meeting, the authors asked for adoption by
the DNSOP WG. The feedback
Petr Špaček writes:
On 16. 07. 19 10:03, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
On 7/16/19 1:49 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski
wrote:
Also, the current draft enumerates DLV which needs to be
removed.
Can you explain this?
I can understand a forthcoming clarification
On 16. 07. 19 10:03, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> On 7/16/19 1:49 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>>> Also, the current draft enumerates DLV
>>> which needs to be removed.
>>
>> Can you explain this?
>>
>> I can understand a forthcoming clarification on the
On 7/16/19 1:49 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>> Also, the current draft enumerates DLV
>> which needs to be removed.
>
> Can you explain this?
>
> I can understand a forthcoming clarification on the use of DLV that
> might make it ill-advised to
On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Also, the current draft enumerates DLV
> which needs to be removed.
Can you explain this?
I can understand a forthcoming clarification on the use of DLV that
might make it ill-advised to publish such an RRType, but it's not
obvious that a
Also, the current draft enumerates DLV
which needs to be removed.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:36 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> See also: https://marc.info/?l=ietf=154416657729620=2
>
> An example of using IANA registries:
>
>
See also: https://marc.info/?l=ietf=154416657729620=2
An example of using IANA registries:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-sdn-ipsec-flow-protection-05
eg:
typedef encryption-algorithm-type {
type uint32;
description
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types,
draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented at the IETF
103 and IETF 104.
During the IETF 104 meeting, the authors asked for adoption by the DNSOP
WG. The feedback from
Dear DNSOP WG,
The draft YANG Types for DNS Classes and Resource Record Types,
draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, has been presented at the IETF
103 and IETF 104.
During the IETF 104 meeting, the authors asked for adoption by the DNSOP
WG. The feedback from the DNSOP WG room was positive
32 matches
Mail list logo
