Re: [netmod] Defining configuraiton: was I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

On 21/06/2017 18:20, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:03:21AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > We found that trying

Re: [netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

Hi William, Please be aware that this draft is moving to the CCAMP WG. I don't think the ccamp-version of the draft has been posted yet, but it will be discussed in that WG (and not NETMOD) in Prague. Regards, Kent > On Jun 22, 2017, at 6:25 AM, William Lupton

[netmod] Fwd: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on IP Services Approved Draft 1"

FYI. Regards, B. Forwarded Message Subject: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison to IETF on IP Services Approved Draft 1" Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 08:24:58 -0700 From: Liaison Statement Management Tool To: Benoit Claise , Alvaro Retana

Re: [netmod] Defining configuraiton: was I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

> Having ' This data is modeled in YANG using "config true" nodes ' sort of > suggests that the original definition holds sway and so contradicts the > previous sentence. And for this sentence to make sense, a reader would > really have to understand the debates over configuration, state and how

Re: [netmod] Defining configuraiton: was I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

- Original Message - From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 8:40 PM > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:19:32PM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > I was going to just watch this, but I can't. > > > > To call protocol negotiated values

Re: [netmod] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module status and plans

Dear all, We at the Broadband Forum (BBF) would like to reiterate our interest in the draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module draft. We will also have some technical comments / suggestions (internal discussion is ongoing) that we will share with NETMOD as soon as possible. Thanks, William > On 31