Hi,
(I have a bunch of different roles WRT this work. This mail is being
sent as an individual - as chair, I fully support the previous chair
statements on this draft.)
Chris and I have come up with a proposal on how to provide full NMDA as
part the existing schema-mount module. Our motiva
- Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:21 PM
> Kent, Tom, Yaron, and Ron,
>
> A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model has been published
that addresses your concerns.
Optimist:-)
And we can always have fresh concerns:-(
I no
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen"
To: "t.petch" ; "NETMOD Working Group"
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:06 PM
>
> > Kent
> >
> > You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.
> >
> > The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams
> > should be an Informa
Hi Lou,
I think that this solution is inferior to the model presented in pre-09.
I would prefer that we publish pre09 instead, potentially including the
-08 model in the appendix if that helps progress the document in a more
expedient fashion.
Thanks,
Rob
On 22/02/2018 16:18, Lou Berger wr
Reviewer: Stephen Farrell
Review result: Ready
I reviewed the diff between -18 and RFC6087. [1]
[1]
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc6087&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18
I assume the security ADs were involved already in discussion about
the new security considerations template in
On 2/22/2018 11:49 AM, t.petch wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen"
To: "t.petch" ; "NETMOD Working Group"
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:06 PM
Kent
You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.
The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams
sho
Hi,
I think it was common practice to write
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
instead of just
reference "RFC 6991";
that is to include the RFC title (this can be especially useful with
longer lists of references and less commonly known RFC numbers). It
seems that draft-ietf-net
