Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Sorry for the delayed response. I support adopting this document as a WG item and I will participate in further reviews. Thanks, Athanasios Kyparlis -Original Message- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 9:45 AM To:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06

I have reviewed this and do not believe it is ready for publication. - draft appears in several places - TBD occurs in one - it would seem that there are two modules in this I-D but only one is registered in s.7 - in s.7 I read prefix: syslog reference: which I found odd - ah, it means

[netmod] OPS-DIR review for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04

Hi, I did OPS directorate review for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04. I think the document is in good shape and ready for publication as a standards track RFC. If anything (operations wise), this document will help to add metadata to YANG defined Data Models in a standardized way. So that

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

> On 08 Mar 2016, at 16:20, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > On 3/8/16, 6:35 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > >> >>> On 08 Mar 2016, at 12:08, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund"

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 6:35 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" wrote: > >> On 08 Mar 2016, at 12:08, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >> >>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

[netmod] mbj review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-06

Hi, I have reviewed this document. In general it is in good shape, but it needs some additional clarifying text. o The term VRF is defined but not used. UDP is defined, but not TCP. Consider removing the entire section (or replace with terms defined in this draft). o It seems

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Hi, Concerning cooperation with the IEEE, we have in place a mechanism of communication between the IETF and IEEE 802. Mahesh Jethanadani and myself are involved. The key thing is to send information about important milestones (like Last Calls) to the IEEE, it can be done via email, no need

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

> On 08 Mar 2016, at 12:08, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:23:50AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 1:55 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:23:50AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> > >> > The thing about the static route definition for IPv4 and IPv6 is that >>their

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

On 3/8/16, 1:47 AM, "j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de" wrote: >On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:23:50AM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: >> >> The thing about the static route definition for IPv4 and IPv6 is that >>their RIBs will have pretty much the same

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

"Yingzhen Qu (yiqu)" writes: > Hi Lada, > > For ECMP, we can actually define the next-hop as a list, so if there is > only one element in the list it¹s the simple next-hop case, and for ECMP > there are multiple elements in the list. RIB is more complete by adding > ECMP support.