Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

From: Jürgen Schönwälder Sent: 27 June 2022 15:08 On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:41:35AM +, tom petch wrote: > > Two additional thoughts. Martin Durst has seen the YANG for language tags in > the I2NSF I-D and says that it is 'complete overkill'. Also, 10 IPR claims > have been submitted

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On 2022-06-27, at 16:08, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > Petterns are nice to have to detect wrong values "early" but once > patterns become very complex, the likelihood increases that they are > wrong. We (draft-ietf-core-problem-details) had a grammar mirroring RFC 5646 first but then came up

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 11:41:35AM +, tom petch wrote: > > Two additional thoughts. Martin Durst has seen the YANG for language tags in > the I2NSF I-D and says that it is 'complete overkill'. Also, 10 IPR claims > have been submitted against I2NSF I-D, albeit for older versions, with >

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

To: Andy Bierman; Jürgen Schönwälder > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 > > From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11 > > So we have the following options: > > a) Leave revision-date

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

netmod on behalf of tom petch > > Sent: 24 March 2022 17:17 > To: Andy Bierman; Jürgen Schönwälder > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 > > From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder > > Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11 &

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

I beleive there was no agreement but chairs, judge yourself. /js On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 08:09:31PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > The WG State for this draft is currently: > > Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead > Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised > > What is the current

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

The WG State for this draft is currently: Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised What is the current status? No impact from the ip-address, ipv4-address, and ipv6-address types discussion? Ready for Shepherd writeup? Kent // as

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

y needs to be now, not > next year. > > Tom Petch > > > From: netmod on behalf of tom petch > > Sent: 24 March 2022 17:17 > To: Andy Bierman; Jürgen Schönwälder > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11 So we have the following options: a) Leave revision-date to be defined in ietf-yang-revisions. b) Define revision-date in ietf-yang-types

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:24:55AM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > This draft has been moved out of the WG. Now in shepherd write-up. > > Comments: > > Section 4 is titled "Internet-Specific Derived Types" > Should it be something like "Internet Protocol Suite Types"? I do not care much, I now

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

ipv6-address types? > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen > > Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:25 PM > To: "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-...@ietf.org" > > Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" > Subject: Re: [n

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

c: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 This draft has been moved out of the WG. Now in shepherd write-up. Comments: · Section 4 is titled "Internet-Specific Derived Types" oShould it be something like "Internet Pr

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

This draft has been moved out of the WG. Now in shepherd write-up. Comments: Section 4 is titled "Internet-Specific Derived Types" Should it be something like "Internet Protocol Suite Types"? Many places have "Simplified BSD" should be "Revised BSD" The "description" for "email-address" says:

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

From: netmod on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder Sent: 22 March 2022 07:11 So we have the following options: a) Leave revision-date to be defined in ietf-yang-revisions. b) Define revision-date in ietf-yang-types. c) Define a date-no-zone type (derived from the date type) which does not have

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

So we have the following options: a) Leave revision-date to be defined in ietf-yang-revisions. b) Define revision-date in ietf-yang-types. c) Define a date-no-zone type (derived from the date type) which does not have the optional time zone offset. I am leaning towards option c), having a

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 6:01 AM Jürgen Schönwälder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:21:01PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:34 PM Kent Watsen > wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > > > 1) If you provided WGLC comments on this draft,

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 05:21:01PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:34 PM Kent Watsen wrote: > > > All, > > > > 1) If you provided WGLC comments on this draft, please review the -12 diff > > to > >

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

sed successfully! > > Authors, please let the chairs know when the issues have been resolved and > the draft is ready to be progressed for IESG review. > > Kent > > > > On Feb 3, 2022, at 9:54 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Dear NETMOD WG, > > This message begin

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

gt; >> >> >>> On Feb 3, 2022, at 9:54 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: >>> >>> Dear NETMOD WG, >>> >>> This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 >>> ending on Friday, February 18th. Here is a direct

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 12:12:36PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote: > Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:20:57AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do > > > we mean the "URI" > > > >

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:20:57AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do > > we mean the "URI" > > "The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier > (URI) as defined

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 11:20:57AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote: > Hi, > > You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do > we mean the "URI" "The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as defined by STD 66. [...]" STD 66 resolves to RFC

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Hi, You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do we mean the "URI" I agree with you re the problem with pattern in this case. The simplest pattern would be: pattern "[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*:.*"; // matches the mandatory scheme but I think you will say that either we

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Martin, the problem is finding a pattern that is guaranteed to not exclude anything valid and which is simple enough to be understood and put in a YANG module. People on the Internet tried to literally capture the ABNF rules of RFC 3986 leading to regular expression monsters. I am open for

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Hi, While reviewing draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-02, I had to study the type inet:uri again. I assume that the type "uri" is supposed to mean the type that is defined by the ABNF rule "URI" in RFC 3986. If my assumption is correct I think we should make this clear in 6991bis. If my assumption is not

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

draft is ready to be progressed for IESG review. > > Kent > > > > > On Feb 3, 2022, at 9:54 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > Dear NETMOD WG, > > > > This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 > > ending on

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:51:29PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > On 18/02/2022 18.11, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:39 AM Martin Björklund > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I didn't find any discussion about the new percent

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

ar NETMOD WG, > > This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 > ending on Friday, February 18th. Here is a direct link to the HTML version > of the draft: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11.ht

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On 18/02/2022 18.11, Andy Bierman wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:39 AM Martin Björklund > wrote: Hi, I didn't find any discussion about the new percent types in the list archives.  Do we really need three types for percent?  We can now express

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:39 AM Martin Björklund wrote: > Hi, > > I didn't find any discussion about the new percent types in the list > archives. Do we really need three types for percent? We can now > express 4294967295 percent, but not 10.5 percent. > > IMO it is a mistake to have too many

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Hi, I didn't find any discussion about the new percent types in the list archives. Do we really need three types for percent? We can now express 4294967295 percent, but not 10.5 percent. The new tables look good. s/6020/6021/g though. /martin Jürgen Schönwälder wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15,

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:12:04PM +, maqiufang (A) wrote: > I have only one comment: It seems that Table 2 doesn’t list all the > types defined in “ietf-inet-types” YANG module, e.g., > protocol-number, ip-address-link-local, ip-address-and-prefix… > Should this be fixed? Yes, this should

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

I have reviewed this document. I believe it is in good shape and ready to proceed toward publication. Cheers, Charles > On Feb 3, 2022, at 6:54 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Dear NETMOD WG, > > This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 >

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

+1 B. On 2/14/2022 11:49 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: I have followed the discussions on this draft and believe it is ready for publication. On Thursday, February 3, 2022, 09:54:23 PM EST, Kent Watsen wrote: Dear NETMOD WG, This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

, Qiufang From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 6:43 AM To: Reshad Rahman Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 Thank you Reshad for your reply. All, the WGLC is set to close in three

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

I think this work has already been completed, it has been parked for quite a long time, I support its publication. -Qin 发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen 发送时间: 2022年2月15日 6:43 收件人: Reshad Rahman 抄送: netmod@ietf.org 主题: Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

I have followed the discussions on this draft and believe it is ready for publication. > > On Thursday, February 3, 2022, 09:54:23 PM EST, Kent Watsen > wrote: > > > Dear NETMOD WG, > > This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 >

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

; > I have reviewed this document, no concerns. I believe it is ready for > publication. > > Regards, > Reshad. > > On Thursday, February 3, 2022, 09:54:23 PM EST, Kent Watsen > wrote: > > > Dear NETMOD WG, > > This message begins a two-week WGLC f

Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

I have reviewed this document, no concerns. I believe it is ready for publication. Regards,Reshad. On Thursday, February 3, 2022, 09:54:23 PM EST, Kent Watsen wrote: Dear NETMOD WG, This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 ending on Friday, February

[netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11

Dear NETMOD WG, This message begins a two-week WGLC for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11 ending on Friday, February 18th. Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-11.html Positive comments, e.g