Support.
Kent // contributor
-Original Message-
From: Kent Watsen
Date: Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:48 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org"
Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
The IETF 102 in-room poll showed really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 01:21:04PM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote:
> This is start of a two week working group last-call for
> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a current netmod working group
> document.
>
> You may review at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02
>
> Please
This is start of a two week working group last-call for
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a current netmod working group
document.
You may review at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If
Folks,
This call is a mistake on my part.
I meant to start a two week last call and sent this message instead.
There are important issues that have been teased out in this thread and
we ned to address them but we should be doing that in guise of a working
group last call.
Joel
On 9/26/18
Support! Important work!
Susan Hares
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:08 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org; Kent Watsen
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support as co-author
No objection, I support adoption of this document.
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2018-10-02, 9:52 AM, "Kent Watsen" wrote:
Hi Reshad, thanks for asking.
It's a grey area. It could go either way. Both charters support the work.
The chairs are all 50/50 as for best fit. Squinting, it
Support As coauthor.
--
Thanks,
Yingzhen
发件人：Kent Watsen
收件人：netmod@ietf.org,
时间：2018-10-01 14:48:55
主 题：[netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no
Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.
/martin
Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please
Support.
On 10/1/18, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support.
On 01/10/2018 19:48, Kent Watsen wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this draft, and no objections.
This email starts an adoption poll for:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Please indicate your support or objection to
Hi Reshad, thanks for asking.
It's a grey area. It could go either way. Both charters support the work.
The chairs are all 50/50 as for best fit. Squinting, it seems more an
NMDA-thing than a transport-thing (i.e., not NC or RC specific), and NETMOD is
more the "NMDA group" than NETCONF,
Hi,
I'm not aware of any IPR that was not disclosed.
--
Thanks,
Yingzhen
发件人：Alexander Clemm
收件人：Jeff Tantsura,netmod@ietf.org,Kent Watsen,
时间：2018-10-01 18:13:47
主 题：Re: [netmod] IPR poll on draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Kent,
same here. I am
Kent, I may have asked this question in Montreal but I don't remember the
answer: why is this document in NETMOD and not in NETCONF?
Regards,
Reshad.
On 2018-10-01, 2:48 PM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen"
wrote:
The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
this
Support to adopt this draft.
-Qin
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt this
> draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
Support. Lada
On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 18:48 +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The IETF 102 in-room poll should really good support to adopt
> this draft, and no objections.
>
> This email starts an adoption poll for:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00
>
> Please indicate
HI Stefan, Martin,
Thanks a lot.
Pls see inline below.
BR, Karen
> >
> > I hope that you can accept the follow up right below:
> >
> > * Would it not be relevant in the draft to outline the relation to the
> > alarm-
> state in RFC8348 ?
> >
> > ** Possibly even in the substance of the
Hi Karen!
See inline
br Stefan and Martin
>
> I hope that you can accept the follow up right below:
>
> * Would it not be relevant in the draft to outline the relation to the
> alarm-state in RFC8348 ?
>
> ** Possibly even in the substance of the document rather then in an appendix
> -
17 matches
Mail list logo
