Re: [netmod] Call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

I support the adoption of this document as a WG item. Thanks. > On Oct 22, 2016, at 6:26 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Dear working group, > > Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item > and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a

Re: [netmod] 6087bis shepherd writeup issues

Hi, I will create an updated draft before the I-D cutoff Andy On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > Andy, all, > > > > In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues > that I think need to be addressed before the document

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" -Selvakumar From: Kent Watsen Date: Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 6:31 AM To: "rwil...@cisco.com" , "davib...@cisco.com" , "tapsi...@cisco.com" ,

[netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

Authors, Contributors, WG, This IPR disclosure requests is being made as part of the preparation for WG adoption of this draft. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft identified above? Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm

[netmod] Call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang

Dear working group, Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please comment by Friday, November 4, 2016 so that the WG Chairs can gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the

[netmod] 6087bis shepherd writeup issues

Andy, all, In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for AD review: 1. Idnits found the following: == Missing Reference: 'RFC6242' is mentioned on line 2233, but not defined ==

[netmod] review of draft-ietf-pim-yang-03.txt

Authors, I don’t have deep knowledge of PIM, so if some protocol specifics haven’t been modeled right, I missed them. For application comparison, was looking at Juniper PIM configuration. The modules are using draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg as base, and follows the routing-instance-centric