t;
> If the YANG use and knowledge spread, this document will evolve in the
> future.
>
> The problem to be solved, which I faced: "RFC6087 is informational (as
> opposed to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it"
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
&g
etmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
Hi Benoit, et al.,
As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I know
that Lou does as well (I just asked him). As co-chair, reading Section 6.1.1
of RFC 2026, I feel that we need to formally run the decision past the WG.
pposed
to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it"
Regards, Benoit
Kent
On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
bcla...@cisco.com<mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrot
oit
Kent
On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
bcla...@cisco.com <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
I'm wondering if it's not time to classify
draft-ietf-
, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
bcla...@cisco.com<mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
I'm wondering if it's not time to classify draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a
BCP, as opposed to in
Dear all,
I'm wondering if it's not time to classify draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis
as a BCP, as opposed to informational
This text would need to change:
This document is similar to the Structure of Management
Information
version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification
