Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: > > The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting > draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. The minutes also show that > this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

+1 From: netmod > on behalf of Kent Watsen > Date: Tuesday 15 December 2015 17:48 To: "netmod@ietf.org" > Subject: [netmod]

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Hi Juergen, Hopefully I can answer your questions inline ... On 15/12/2015 17:08, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Hi Tom, On 15/12/2015 17:10, Nadeau Thomas wrote: On Dec 15, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting

[netmod] Milestones changed for netmod WG

Changed milestone "Submit YANG 1.1 to the IESG", set due date to January 2016 from October 2015. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/charter/ ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Broadband Forum intention of using ietf-entity YANG module

So, let's do it. Tom, or one of the other chairs - you need to run this. Regards, Dan > -Original Message- > From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bcla...@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2015 9:18 PM > To: Nadeau Thomas; Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod]

Re: [netmod] Guidance on list vs. container of list

Andy Bierman writes: > Hi, > > Use of NP-containers are subjective, based on how you > want to organize your data. The extra layer of containment > may be a waste, but it sometimes has a purpose > > - 2 or more sibling lists with lots of entries can be mixed in JSON, >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01.txt

[As a contributor] This update reflects the four on-list email threads since -00 was published as follows: 1. Regarding Balazs, Gert, and Robert’s thread here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14243.html The term “non-derived” state in Req #4 has been removed and new

[netmod] FW: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09, draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-07 and draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-03

FYI and attention. Please provide your comments to NETCONF WG maillist. Mehmet From: Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:59 PM To: netc...@ietf.org Cc: 'c...@ietf.org' ; 'i...@ietf.org' ; '6...@ietf.org' <6...@ietf.org>;

[netmod] operational state: next step

Dear all: Background: the operational state is a blocking factor for the publication of the YANG models. For example, I've been told that the ISIS and OSPF models are ready, pending resolution on the operational state. Let me try to clarify the situation and the next steps. During the

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

> On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:34, Nadeau Thomas wrote: > > > NETMOD: > > The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked on the > IETF Entity module have asked that the working group considerthe ietf-entity > YANG module > (currently

[netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

NETMOD: The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked on the IETF Entity module have asked that the working group considerthe ietf-entity YANG module (currently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-entitydt-netmod-entity/ which is still in individual draft