Hi,
The RMONMIB WG intends to hold an interim meeting to
work on all aspects of the new charter. This includes:
- Application Performance Monitoring (APM)
- Transport Performance Metrics (TPM)
- User-Defined TopN Monitoring MIB (UsrTopN)
- DIFFSERV Monitoring MIB (DS-MON)
Meeting
Hi,
I would like the IESG to consider splitting this list into 2 lists.
One list for discussion of Last Call issues and another for
everything else (including minor stuff like splitting the
IETF-Announce or IETF lists :-)
thanks,
Andy
and
if they keep doing it, they will be blocked from posting.
Andy
[Splitting the -announce list doesn't have this disadvantage.]
Brian
Andy Bierman wrote:
Hi,
I would like the IESG to consider splitting this list into 2 lists.
One list for discussion of Last Call issues and another
At 03:20 PM 3/15/2003 -0500, Melinda Shore wrote:
My guess is that going to two would hurt income, unless we raise fees by
50% - the same people would come, I think.
Going to four would be damaging to my sanity, at least - don't know about
others' we whould expect slightly lower
At 05:44 PM 7/1/2003, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
Hi all
I am searching for capwap Agenda
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03jul/capwap.txt
Friday, July 18
OPS capwap Control And Provisioning of Wirelsss Acc. Point BOF
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Lab,SAMSUNG Electronics
Andy
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I don't think I've seen a reminder this week that
jabber room for the XXX WG or BOF is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI:
Audio feed info:
http://videolab.uoregon.edu/events/ietf/
Jabber info:
http://www.xmpp.org/ietf-chat.html
Meeting slides:
Burger, Eric wrote:
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it
Steve Silverman wrote:
It seems to me that limiting users to 3 messages / day (perhaps with a
maximum number of bytes) would be a
minimal impact on free speech but would limit the damage done by
overly productive transmitters. This could be limited to users who
are nominated to a limit list by
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Andy Bierman writes:
I do not share your regulatory zeal.
As a WG Chair and WG participant, I have enough rules to follow already.
The last thing I want to do is count messages and bytes, and enforce
draconian rules like this.
But counting messages
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Andy Bierman writes:
I think you missed my point.
I should have said enforce or abide by draconian rules.
Automating the process is even worse.
Then stupid scripts disrupt WG activity on a regular basis.
Inappropriate mailing list use should be dealt
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 12:42:17PM -0800,
Ned Freed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
The privileged port concept has some marginal utility on multiuser
systems where you don't Joe-random-user to grab some port for a well
known service.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael StJohns wrote:
What I think Jordi is saying is that he wants the US sponsors to
subsidize the cost of the overseas meetings. At least that's what it
works out to be
This view can be mapped to a classic model that would have significant
benefits for the IETF:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I think that the IETF neglects (or, rather, has neglected in the past)
many possible
opportunities for sponsorship. That implies that increasing the income
from sponsorship should be possible.
People who are concerned with this issue should talk (or email) our IAD,
Ray
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I don't think the meeting fees could actually go down, may be more in the
other way around if we are realistic with the cost figures.
Actually the cost is already high for a sponsor, and I believe trying to get
more from the industry (or other kind of sponsors) for
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
...
A more workable model would be to treat the current
type of meeting as an Annual Plenary, full of Power-Point
laden 2 hour BOFs, and status meetings of almost no value
in the production of standards-track protocols
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Thanks to Keith for changing the Subject when changing the subject.
I know you've heard this all before, but it's been getting
increasingly difficult for us WG Chairs to get all the key
people working on a protocol to fly across the planet for
a 2 hour meeting. These
Edward Lewis wrote:
At 15:51 +0100 3/25/06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If somebody comes to the IETF for a two hour meeting and wastes
the opportunity of another 30+ hours of learning about what other
WGs and BOFs are up to, that would indeed be a shame.
I agree with this, but find that (in
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Indeed. Not only is it small, it isn't where corporate bean counters
put their attention, which is air fare, hotel, and per diem.
Brian,
this is not universally true. With cheaper air fares and not staying in
the overpriced Hilton hotel rooms, my IETF65 meeting fee
WGs who even want to
have a 1 day interim instead of a 2 hour slot in Montreal.
(NETCONF WG volunteers right now ;-)
(IMO, BOFs should be early in the week, not on Friday.
Cross-area review of new ideas is just as important as
anything else.)
Brian
Andy
Andy Bierman wrote:
Harald
Stewart Bryant wrote:
In Paris, we switched to a late dinner which was necessary in Paris
but we did this in Dallas. Was this a general decision that I missed?
I prefer dinner from 6 - 8 and a night session where the local customs
support this. This might also cut down the need for
David Harrington wrote:
If I remember correctly, we only limit the number of suthors on the
first page of the document.
It is perfectly acceptable to list a longer set of names inside the
document in an contributors section.
It's not just the first page.
It also affects the reference
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Nobody flies from LAX to San Diego because it ends up taking
twice as long as driving for 10 times as much, so don't expect
lots of flights from LA.
For visitors, you might want to fly to LAX, rent a car,
drive down the 405, and take a detour to the Laguna Beach
area on
Dave Crocker wrote:
Clint Chaplin wrote:
One data point: IEEE 802 is in San Diego this week, and I've met at
least one attendee who flew through LAX to get here; that is, he took
LAX - SAN as his last leg.
the flight is so short, one can feel guilty taking it. however the effort to
rent a
todd glassey wrote:
So let me ask the obvious thing... why is the RFP content being voted on?
This is a business decision in regard to services and process. Why is any of
it open to review inside the IETF?
Because the lunatics want to run the asylum? ;-)
Seriously though, it seems to me
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I was quite surprised to discover that this message is not
in the mailing list archive, so I am repeating it.
A copy certainly reached the newtrk WG prior to
its closure.
Original Message
Subject: IETF Process discussions - next steps
Date: Thu, 10 Aug
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in
which the representatives are chosen by a random selection
process, rather than by election. The outcome, which
supports in-depth consideration and
IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is preparing the 2007 budget and would like feedback on whether
or not to continue producing the IETF meeting CDs of the Proceedings.
It has been suggested as a way of employing limited Secretariat labor
more productively that the IAOC discontinue
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
A typical NEA case (taken out of what Cisco's NAC is supposed to be good
for):
- Worker goes on holiday, takes laptop
- New attack is discovered that exploits a newly discovered Windows
vulnerability
- Patch is created, distributed and installed
- NEA posture
Eliot Lear wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
I don't agree that this is low-hanging fruit.
The server component of this system seems like a wonderful
new target for DDoS and masquerade attacks.
Well, first of all I don't see why this is any different than a radius
server. In fact it could
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's my understanding also. but nothing you said here
contradicts my statement. if connection of the host to the
network is predicated on having the host conform to whatever
arbitrary policy the network wishes to
Hi,
There is only one hotel listed for IETF 68:
http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/68-hotels.html
There are no more rooms at the IETF rate, and perhaps
at any rate. The online form says no rooms are available
that week.
I'm having trouble finding Pobrezni 1 186 00 Prague 8 Czech Republic
with
Janet P Gunn wrote:
IIRC the hotel web site has a map. You could use that to find the names of
nearby streets.
Really? Where?
The one I found didn't have street names.
http://www1.hilton.com/en_US/hi/hotel/PRGHITW/directions.do#localmap
Janet
Andy
Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED
Andrew G. Malis wrote:
You're much better off following this link (but I think you have to use
Internet Explorer for it to work):
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2cp=50.09292~14.437961style=rlvl=17tilt=-90dir=0alt=-1000rtp=null~null
Dave Crocker wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
is it a bad thing to provide
the expressive nature of ASN.1 in a human-readable and popular data
representation?
The one thing IETF standardization certainly ought to imply is that
there is a real constituency interesting in using the specification
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 16:58 +0100 Simon Josefsson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a
proposal is made I hear the complexity argument used against
it. Everything we
Schliesser, Benson wrote:
Eric-
It sounds like your argument is: We're too incompetent to say our names
at the mic, so we're probably too incompetent to use a RFID system.
Did I get that right?
This sounds like a Rube Goldberg joke, not a serious thread.
Could we possibly find a more
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 02:42:19 PM -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are so many Process Wonks in the IETF who feel it
is their sworn duty to yell State your name please!
I think it's unfair to call people who do that process wonks or any
Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007 03:51:56 PM -0700 Andy Bierman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonk_%28slang%29
According to wikipedia, a policy wonk is
someone knowledgeable about and fascinated by details of government
policy and programs
Philip Guenther wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:10 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
...
I find it rather annoying to listen to the constant interruptions,
reminding people of the process. The only reasons for such an
interruption are:
...
2) you plan to base your opinion of the imminent comment
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Just following up here...
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The mailing
list verification has at least two properties that are more important
to the IETF: the archives provide for anyone to be able to
Michael Thomas wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Just following up here...
From: Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, I wonder why anonymity is an important requirement. The
mailing list verification has at least two properties that are more
important to the IETF
Sam Hartman wrote:
Andy == Andy Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andy This is not an alternative. If you are not willing to make
Andy your technical objections to a technical specification
Andy publicly, then they cannot be part of the IETF
Andy decision-making process
Michael Thomas wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in
an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
It promotes indecision and inaction.
Is there any human decision making process that has all
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Combined response:
On 2007-05-31 23:07, Andy Bierman wrote:
I think the inability of the IETF to make decisions in
an open, deterministic, and verifiable manner is a major flaw.
It promotes indecision and inaction.
I think the ability of some other SDOs to take
FYI,
According to the WEB, it is really easy and really cheap
to take the train from the O'Hare airport to the IETF hotel.
(I have not verified this info however...)
From the airport:
1) Walk east on the terminal 2 CTA Rail Walkway to the station
2) Take the Blue line train southbound
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Well I was not indicating that, but simple maths can also say so.
As it seems that more people is contributing from Europe than from US, it
means for more people more traveling time, more time with immigration
issues, etc. Probably we could count from 16 to 40 hours
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I was talking to a couple of people this week about what I consider to
be a related issue: the fact that for the two or three wg meetings I'm
interested in, there's little point in me being at the meeting for a
whole week.
What about holding two or three meetings
Lixia Zhang wrote:
..
I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly. It would be
useful if that energy waste could be reduced. Having 'running code' as
Paul Hoffman wrote:
On a thread about a specific document that is proposed to be an
Informational RFC coming through the IETF process:
At 1:12 PM -0400 8/20/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
I've asked the sponsoring AD to make a
consensus call on whether we have sufficient support to be making this
Adrian Farrel wrote:
We shall see, but I don't know that putting up the price necessarily
fixes the registration income issue. You only have to deter a relatively
small proportion of attendees to wipe out the increase in charge.
I assume that the converse is also being applied: viz. cutting
Hi,
Several drafts posted on the morning of Feb. 1 are returning '404 not found'
errors. These 5 were posted in sequence, at 10:36 AM PT:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltans-ers-scvp-06.txt
Dave Crocker wrote:
Ray Pelletier wrote:
The venue will be the beautiful Citywest Hotel, Ireland’s premier
Conference, Leisure Golf Resort and one of Europe’s most popular
International Conference destinations. The four star Citywest Hotel is
only 20km from Dublin airport and 15km from
Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
However, there are obvious logistical concerns, especially at lunch
time. Is 90 minutes really enough time to bus into town, eat lunch,
and get back?
Lunch is always a problem. That's why we have a sandwich stand
Eric Rescorla wrote:
I object to the formation of this WG with this charter.
While there was a clear sense during the BOF that there was interest
in forming a WG, there was absolutely no consensus on technical
direction. Rather, a number of proposals were presented, but no
strawpoll, hum,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
...
Accordingly, if this WG is to be formed, the entire section (and
corresponding
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:17:47 -0600,
Randy Presuhn wrote:
Our ADs worked very hard to prevent us from talking about technology
choices at the CANMOD BOF. Our original proposal for consensus
hums included getting a of sense of preferences
David Harrington wrote:
Here are my reasons why I support the charter, which align with yours:
There are multiple types of users for data models.
The operators and reviewers care about the semantic model
much more than the syntactic mapping. Ease of use and stability
have proven to be the
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
(Fanning the flames...)
I do not understood why WGs are forbidden from conducting
interim or other official extended technical f2f meetings
before, during, or after, an IETF meeting.
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't see the value of running code quite as others do.
I agree. It was valuable in good old days, when implmenting a protocol
was purely voluntary with no budget.
Existence of multiple independent implementations, then, meant the
protocol
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 3/3/09 9:08 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Andy Bierman wrote:
Since the goal of our work is to produce specifications
that will allow multiple independent implementations to
inter-operate successfully,
How can you define successful interoperation of implementations
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
To put it differently, the OPS area has as much right to propose their
requirements as any other area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...)
has. And generally, the community has listened to such requests and
gone along with them.
Yes, we have produced a bit of a
Stephen Hanna wrote:
Thanks to Dan and Bert for answering my question.
If most NETCONF implementations authenticate users
and implement some form of authorization scheme,
there should be no problem with including text
in draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt that
says NETCONF servers that
Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:26:54 -0700, Andy Bierman i...@andybierman.com
said:
AB discard-changes only works because authorization is ignored,
AB otherwise the agent would be deadlocked.
Huh why would discard-changes be authorization ignorant??? That's
just
Wes Hardaker wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:55:15 -0700, Andy Bierman i...@andybierman.com
said:
AB Oherwise the agent would deadlock.
AB discard-changes does not affect the running configuration.
No, but it does affect the other users notion of changes. You should
never be allowed
Hi,
The get-config was removed from the diagram to make room for
the notification stuff on the right. It does not mean that
get-config was removed from the protocol. The box just showed
2 of the many operations, now only 1.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Tina Tsou
On 01/03/2012 08:52 AM, George, Wes wrote:
Happy New Year, it's time for our triannual hotel complaint thread.
I hate to do it, but I think that there are people who haven't looked at this
yet, and I'm hoping that we can perhaps rectify it before the majority of folks
try to book:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com wrote:
Hi,
The OPSAWG/OPSAREA open meeting this afternoon has an item on the agenda
concerning the revision of RFC1052 and discussing a new architecture for
management protocols.
My personal take is that no one
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that
they have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one
that took the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote:
Dan,
On 4/16/13 2:00 AM, Dan Harkins wrote:
Under the belief of garbage in, garbage out, I tend to lie on these
sorts of repugnant questions. I invite others to join me. The more
suspect the quality of the data, the less
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.cawrote:
#part sign=pgpmime
Jari == Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net writes:
Jari I wrote a blog article about how we do a fairly significant
Jari amount of reviews and changes in the late stages of the IETF
..
WG chairs might like to comment, but I suspect that one lunchtime training
session every four months does not constitute proactive management.
+1 !!!
It works on down the line too.
WG Chairs meeting with I-D editors once every 4 months isn't so great
either.
If the total time has gone up
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote:
I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text
emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef addresses
the difference in the patterns.
Is there a YANG rule that says tat if
Hi,
The evidence seems to show that the IESG is getting faster
at their job and WGs are getting slower at theirs. I don't
see any need for DISCUSS Rules. All the AD reviews I've
experienced have improved the document, sometimes a lot.
All DISCUSS issues got cleared with reasonable (even good)
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 04:36 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 7:01 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
But WGs should be able to periodically summarize what they're
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.comwrote:
On 05/17/2013 10:21 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
I notice that nowhere on this list is any mention of the charter
milestones
or dates. Is the Foo Proto draft due in 14 months or is it 14 months
behind
schedule
Hi Jari,
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net wrote:
John,
* People aren't aware the IETF exists, or what it does, or that it has
an open participation model
* People don't read and write English well enough to be comfortable
participating
* People are
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
What the weekly stats really ought to tally up is the readers/postings
ratio, so that folk would get more direct feedback as to whether what they
are
posting is actually being read...
My strong suspicion would be that
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
So why not move the signal?
Put IETF Last Call mail on last-c...@ietf.org and leave this list for
everything else.
The discussion still has
Hi,
I'm not sure how the desire for IETF Last Call discussions
to be on a dedicated and constrained mailing list in any way
implies that this generalized and unconstrained list is somehow a failure.
Filtering by subject line is unreliable.
For example, please provide a filter that will
not have
Hi,
I am strongly opposed to a remote meeting registration process and remote
meeting fees.
This increases the financial bias towards large corporate control of IETF
standards.
I like the IETF because anybody can comment on a draft or write a draft
without
paying fees.
I think there could be
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 5:17 PM, Josh Howlett wrote:
Day passes have nothing to do with it.
I disagree. Day passes encourage the notion that it's normal to
parachute into the IETF to attend a single session. I think that the
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
...
given the number of graybeards who attend IETF,
I think paying attention to the problem of excessive sugar in break foods is
really important.
I'm not supposed to have sugar, so the massive quantities of
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands raised is comparable across tests.
The sum of the amplitude of all hums is not.
Andy
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Ralph Droms
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM 8/1/13, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:04 AM, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
we have never voted at IETFs.
we believe in rough consensus and running code
We are not voting.
We are expressing agreement with a specific assertion.
That is true whether the agreement is expressed via vocalization
or motion
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
Hi,
Isn't it obvious why humming is flawed and raising hands works?
(Analog vs. digital). A hand is either raised or it isn't.
The sum of all hands
Hi,
I don't care if this report is published or not, but I will point
out that the 1 week sample period is not that useful if
the intent is to spot excessive posting.
Somebody could be following up on 1 thread, and not post again
for a year. Somebody could be participating in an IETF Last Call
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
Ulrich Herberg wrote:
I think that the heat was exceptional. I have grown up in Munich, and
I have rarely ever seen it that hot (either in Munich or Berlin).
Maybe it's global warming? ;-)
Damn coincidences!
IETF 39 was in
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Yaron Sheffer yaronf.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Randy,
I prefer to leave this question to people who know something about Netconf,
i.e. not me.
But let me just say that, based on my thoroughly extensive 5-min. research,
YANG seems to be incompatible with
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote:
On Aug 14, 2013, at 13:40, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
YANG seems to be incompatible with CBOR.
so what does that say about yang, yang's suitability for netconf, cbor,
and cbor's suitability?
Good question. I'm not
Hi,
+1
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Maybe I am missing something.
The reason we have face-to-face meetings is because there is value in such
meetings that can not reasonably be achieved in other ways.
I would like remote participation to be as
91 matches
Mail list logo