Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-03

As co-author, I support and am not aware of any IPR. Thanks, Yingzhen -Original Message- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:04 AM To: Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] WG

Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

Hi all, I personally like to keep the ‘@’ and the '/' in the tree output. As we know that a tree may not catch all what a module is trying to do, but it can help users to quickly get an idea of the module's overall architecture etc. The '@' and the '/' is very helpful in order to understand

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Thanks, Yingzhen -Original Message- From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 6:56 AM To: Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net>; Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz>; Yingzhen Q

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll for draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

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

Re: [netmod] IPR poll on draft-clemm-netmod-nmda-diff-00

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

Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-01

I support WG adoption. Thanks, Yingzhen From: netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 1:32 PM To: "netmod@ietf.org" Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-chopps-netmod-geo-location-01 This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

Re: [netmod] Doubts about static routes in RFC 8349

Hi Martin, I agree with what Acee explained. Theoretically it's possible that in operation state an implementation can expand this into several route entries, but that's not how typically a RIB is implemented. One reason is that it will make the routing table look up much harder and

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff - IPR verfication request

I'm not aware of any IPR besides the one disclosed. Thanks, Yingzhen On 2/25/20, 10:42 PM, "Jeff Tantsura" wrote: Joel, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Jeff > On Feb 17, 2020, at 11:44, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > > No,

Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags

Hi, Here is my understanding of the node-tag draft. Please correct me if there is any misunderstanding. This draft is an idea extension of the module-tag draft. Module-tag is to tag or categorize modules, for example, tag “ietf:routing” can be used to “group” together modules like

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8349 (6251)

Sorry, had to resend the email with reduced recipients because it was held due to too many recipients. Thanks, Yingzhen On 8/14/20, 2:50 PM, "Yingzhen Qu" wrote: Hi Tarek, The proposed change separates IP routes and MPLS routes, and it works fine with RFC 8349. All

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

Hi Reshad, Thank you for your review. About the example, in RFC 8072, in the list “edit”, each edit is identified by “edit-id”. So the example looks like: 1 ….. 2 …. Do you mean this part is broken? Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Tuesday, September 22,

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

uot; Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 4:58 AM To: Yingzhen Qu , Alexander L Clemm , "yang-doct...@ietf.org" Cc: "last-c...@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

Hi Reshad, Thanks for the link to verify JSON, it’s very helpful. I’ve uploaded version -07. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 8:34 AM To: Yingzhen Qu , Alexander L Clemm , "yang-d

Re: [netmod] [Lsr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-10.txt

Hi Rob, Thanks for the thoughtful proposal, and I support it. One thing to confirm, for models that may become RFCs in the next two years and where the IP address doesn’t support zones, "ip-address” should still be used. Correct? Thanks, Yingzhen > On Apr 11, 2022, at 10:06 AM, Rob Wilton

Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-acee-rtgwg-vrrp-rfc8347bis-03.txt

Hi, Speaking as an individual contributor, I'm leaning toward option 3. In case someone implemented RFC 8347, they can choose whether to implement the new model. Thanks, Yingzhen On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 12:43 PM Acee Lindem wrote: > This BIS document updates the YANG model with IETF inclusive

Re: [netmod] "A YANG Data Model for Routing Management" Modifications

raint that enforces the fact that both >interface and address cannot be “unspecified”. > >Thanks, >Acee > >On 5/30/16, 8:51 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >>"Yingzhen Qu (yiqu)" <y...@cisco.com> writes: >> >>> Hi L

Re: [netmod] proposed change to ietf-routing

Hi Lada, For ECMP, we can actually define the next-hop as a list, so if there is only one element in the list it¹s the simple next-hop case, and for ECMP there are multiple elements in the list. RIB is more complete by adding ECMP support. Thanks, Yingzhen On 3/4/16, 5:00 AM, "netmod on behalf