Balazs,
I support adopting this draft as a workgroup item.
Others have mentioned a few items to clarify/modify. I think there are a few
that jump out at me:
* What Martin said about how to evolve section 4.
* The augmentation requirements mentioned by Joe, i.e. making sure they are
Hi,
Shawn Emery reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10 and made this
editorial comment:
OLD:
These are the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
NEW:
The following should be considered for subtrees/data nodes and their
corresponding sensitivity/vulnerability:
The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG
Data Model'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please
>> The authors of yang-data-ext met today to discuss how to move this
>> draft forward. After about an hour, we decided that the best course
>> of action is to:
>>
>> * clarify RFC 8040 rc:yang-data for the zerotouch use case
>> - and update the zerotouch draft to use rc:yang-data
>>
On 6/25/18 14:56, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> The authors of yang-data-ext met today to discuss how to move this draft
> forward. After about an hour, we decided that the best course of action is
> to:
>
> * clarify RFC 8040 rc:yang-data for the zerotouch use case
> - and update the
The authors of yang-data-ext met today to discuss how to move this draft
forward. After about an hour, we decided that the best course of action is to:
* clarify RFC 8040 rc:yang-data for the zerotouch use case
- and update the zerotouch draft to use rc:yang-data
* request this WG
