[netmod] NETMOD Interim Meeting

The NETMOD Working Group will host a 2-hour interim meeting on Thursday 6/18/2015 (10am-noon Eastern). The agenda will be to split the 2 hours in half, one hour for each of the the opstate and model-structure drafts. Coordinates for meeting materials will follow closer to the

Re: [netmod] IDR interim to discuss status of BGP interims

Adding rtg-yang-coord > On Jun 12, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Susan Hares wrote: > > The IDR interim on 6/15 at 10:00 – 11:30am will walk through the BGP Yang > modules. It may be of interest to people in your working groups. Below is > the agendas and web-ex dial-in. > > Updates to the

Re: [netmod] YANG repo syntax issues

Can you post this in the messages/discussion on Git? I will also chase down fixing this warning. —Tom > On Jun 13, 2015:11:13 AM, at 11:13 AM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > > Hi, > > I was checking our compiler against the yang repo directory "standard", > and these errors and w

Re: [netmod] interim call-in info

will do > On Jun 16, 2015:9:55 AM, at 9:55 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > > Can the NETMOD chairs remember to post the meeting info > before the meeting? > > Can't find it so please post again > > ___ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org >

Re: [netmod] follow-up from virtual interim and i2rs discussions

> On Jun 23, 2015:5:57 PM, at 5:57 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Dean Bogdanovic > wrote: > > On Jun 23, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Yup, and reality can change when you

[netmod] draft meeting minutes from Interim meeting on June 18, 2015

These are the draft meeting minutes from Interim meeting on June 18, 2015. Please comment. If I don’t hear from anyone by Friday, they will be published as-is. —Tom NETMOD Virtual Interim Meeting (June 18, 2015) * Participants - Acee - Ambika Prasad Tripathy - Andy Biermann

[netmod] Action from Today's Interim Meeting

First, can the folks that presented slides today (Acee and Anees) please send their slides to the list here. Preferred mode is a URL to a place where the slides exist so we don’t fill everyones’ boxes with PPTs. 8) Also, we need at least one person to try to document (slides/txt

Re: [netmod] Action from Today's Interim Meeting

Good point. —Tom > On Jun 25, 2015:1:15 PM, at 1:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 12:51:49PM -0400, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> First, can the folks that presented slides today (Acee and Anees) >> please

[netmod] recording from today's interim meeting

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=6099358e34d5c21048393d5ff437ab71 ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] recording from today's interim meeting

Sorry, that one was from last week. This one is from today: The file name says: NETMOD Virtual Interim Meeting-20150625 1408-1 https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=99e05d8c2a46b384379cbc5ce5ac265c > On Jun 25, 2015:2:16 PM, at 2:16 PM, Nadeau Thomas >

[netmod] Initial IEEE Yang Models Committed

FYI, There was discussion of IEEE/Ethernet models a while back. I wanted to let everyone know that an initial one was just pushed. https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee —Tom ___ n

[netmod] Interim Meeting Minutes June 25, 2015

These are the preliminary notes from the interim meeting on June 25, 2015. I am still awaiting notes from Ignas who also took meeting minutes before I post the official minutes. If there are any comments/corrections to what I have below, please post here as soon as possible.

[netmod] Open Config Options

One of the actions from the last Interim meeting was to have both sides of the issues around the open config approach to create at least slides/textual bullet points for use during our discussion in Praha so we can come to a conclusion around the final issues. We need these slides/bull

Re: [netmod] Mail regarding draft-mansfield-netmod-uml-to-yang

Isn’t this 2015? *) —Tom > On Jul 30, 2015:11:54 AM, at 11:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > Hi all, > > is it possible to use/configure an email quoting style that works with > text-only email readers? I know, it is old fashioned, but I do read > all my email in a t

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig

> On Aug 7, 2015:12:09 PM, at 12:09 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Dear all, > > During the YANG Model Coordination Group webex call today, we discussed > this oper status and structure open issues. We're ready to help > facilitate the discussion between the different proposals > We could com

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig

> On Aug 13, 2015:4:03 PM, at 4:03 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 7, 2015:12:09 PM, at 12:09 PM, Benoit Claise > <mailto:bcla...@cisco.co

Re: [netmod] Y26 again, sorry

Speaking as co-chair: Hold on a minute. As a point of order, our process with the Yang 1.1 issue processing has been very clear: we debate/discuss the issues on the interim calls in order, then propose the outcome that the design team came up with to the list each time. There

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig

> On Aug 13, 2015:4:32 PM, at 4:32 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > >> On Aug 13, 2015:4:03 PM, at 4:03 PM, Andy Bierman > <mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wro

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig

BTW Benoit’s note below and the WebEx should serve as the official notification to the WG that we will be having this interim meeting. It was officially registered with the WG meeting tracker too. Despite this, someone pointed out the other day that I’d not officially announced it. C

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 18, 2015:9:38 PM, at 9:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > [Adding authors and RTG WG.] > > Hi Andy, >I'm not sure who you are looking to hear from as you addressed this > mail to the netmod list. I'm happy to give my opinion as it seems you > might have been aiming this at the draft auth

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 18, 2015:11:04 PM, at 11:04 PM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Lou Berger > wrote: > [Adding authors and RTG WG.] > > Hi Andy, > I'm not sure who you are looking to hear from as you addressed this > mail to the netmod lis

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 19, 2015:10:31 PM, at 10:31 PM, Lou Berger wrote: > > On 08/19/2015 08:48 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >>> On Aug 18, 2015:9:38 PM, at 9:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote: >>> >>> [Adding authors and RTG WG.] >>> >>> Hi Andy

Re: [netmod] extensions and conformance

> On Aug 20, 2015:9:26 AM, at 9:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> Martin Bjorklund writes: >> >>> Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > On 20 Aug 2015, at 13:12, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 20 Aug 2015, at 12:37, Ma

Re: [netmod] extensions and conformance

> On Aug 20, 2015:10:30 AM, at 10:30 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> On 20 Aug 2015, at 16:00, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >>> >>> On Aug 20, 2015:9:26 AM, at 9:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund >>> wrote: >>> >>> Ladislav Lhotka

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

> On Aug 25, 2015:1:25 PM, at 1:25 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > I like the idea of relocatable modules. It is almost to say everything > defined by the IETF should be a grouping, allowing others to assemble the > pieces as they see fit. I do not think it makes sense for IETF to def

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:5:51 AM, at 5:51 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > > On August 26, 2015 2:42:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >> >>> > Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor >>> > models!) will

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >> >> >> On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >>> > Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (i

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:7:58 AM, at 7:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> [Speaking for myself] >> >> Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to >> structure, or is it a resistance to churn/chan

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:8:09 AM, at 8:09 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >>> On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund >>> wrote: >>> >>> "Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: >>>> >>>&g

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:9:09 AM, at 9:09 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) > wrote: > > > > On 8/26/15, 8:09 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: > >> Nadeau Thomas wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund >>>> w

Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

> On Aug 26, 2015:10:51 AM, at 10:51 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: > > > > > Another approach is to not rely so heavily on one giant uber-tree > > that MUST be correct on the first try and never change. > > I agree that an uber tree stands to make things worse. This seems to be the cas

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

> On Aug 27, 2015:1:59 PM, at 1:59 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Rob Shakir > wrote: > > Andy, > > Apologies, I don’t understand how your mail answers the questions that I > posed. > > On August 27, 2015 at 12:25:20, Andy Bierman (a.

Re: [netmod] Motivations for Structuring Models

> On Aug 27, 2015:2:29 PM, at 2:29 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > >> On Aug 27, 2015:1:59 PM, at 1:59 PM, Andy Bierman > <mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wro

Re: [netmod] tracking new YANG language issues

> On Sep 1, 2015:1:58 PM, at 1:58 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Giles Heron wrote: >> On 1 Sep 2015, at 18:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM +0100, Giles Heron wrote: On 1 Sep 2015, at 17:47,

Re: [netmod] minutes of the NETMOD 2015-08-31 virtual interim meeting

> On Sep 8, 2015:10:11 AM, at 10:11 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > On 9/7/15, 3:31 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 09:29:53AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, Is there a WEB page that lists all the upcoming virtual me

[netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

I wanted to set things up for the interim meeting tomorrow. To frame the meeting, we want to achieve two main goals: 1) close on requirements around a requirement to define a structure for IETF models and the requirements around ops state/models 2) discuss/debate/unde

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

useful to know if the scope includes all YANG modules, only > IETF > YANG modules, or perhaps only IETF routing modules. As the scope gets wider, > the probability that "1 size fits all" goes way down. > > > Andy > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:38 PM,

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

> On Sep 10, 2015:2:32 AM, at 2:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > Yes, in my view, section 4.5 goes a bit too far in making a certain > solution part of the requirement. > > The solutions that have been written up have different properties in > terms of data modeling impact, device imp

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

On Sep 10, 2015:8:26 AM, at 8:26 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > I think another question is if the current *requirements* text good /close > enough for a -00 wg document > > Lou > > > On September 10, 2015 8:20:34 AM Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > >> >>&

Re: [netmod] WebEx meeting invitation: NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig: tomorrow meeting

> On Sep 10, 2015:9:45 AM, at 9:45 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > Tom, > > > On 9/10/2015 8:52 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> The desire from the co-chairs and AD anyways, is that we do not start a >> requirements draft >> as a result of today’s meeting (

Re: [netmod] Tomorrow's Interim Meeting Details

https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m66838a52ebff4cf2879dff9b01f30f44 > On Sep 10, 2015:11:01 AM, at 11:01 AM, Martin Bjorklund > wrote: > > Hi, > > I got this, but there is no url to the webex there. Can you send the > url? > > > > /martin > >

[netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

This is an official NETMOD working group call for consensus around the requirements referenced below and discussed in detail at the interim meeting held Thursday, September 10, 2015. At that meeting, the chairs went over each requirement in detail and called for any objections to each

Re: [netmod] Consensus Call Note for Requirements

m in the meeting yesterday, but we had > already spent a lot of time discussing the requirements and I also think that > you understandably went through the options quite fast at the end]. > > On 10/09/2015 21:44, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> This is an official NETMOD

Re: [netmod] Preliminary Meeting Minutes from Interim Meeting 9/10/2015

; > > On 10/09/2015 21:57, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> These are the preliminary/draft meeting minutes from today’s meeting. >> They will be neatened up once we are sure what they contain is accurate. >> Please >> comment ASAP if you feel there are a

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #6: clarify impact of synchronous vs asynchronous (esp. wrt intended and applied)

Robert, It seems this discussion has run out of steam and we’ve come to a head on this issue. It seems we have some actions we can take based on the list of three bullets below as part of that conclusion (potentially). Do folks think we are ready to close this issue

[netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

After going over the plan with Kent, we would like to continue the agenda from the last interim meeting on Thursday. That is to say, Kent will continue with the comparison of solutions. From last time and in parallel with this, the WG discussion around the requirements seems to be con

Re: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

about the open issues: https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues —Tom > On Sep 29, 2015:3:53 PM, at 3:53 PM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > > After going over the plan with Kent, we would like to continue the > agenda from the > last interim meeting on

Re: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

at 10:54 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > > After discussing a bit more with Kent, we wanted to slightly amend > the agenda for tomorrow to first start out with trying to wrap up the > discussion around the requirements. We will review the issues > as they are lis

[netmod] Consensus to Adoption of draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00 as a NETMOD WG Document

NETMOD WG: After much discussion, The Chairs believe there is rough consensus to move forward and adopt the base requirements as listed in draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00. We therefore believe it is appropriate now to adopt draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00 as a NETMOD WG

[netmod] IPR Poll for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02

NETMOD WG: This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). If you are list

Re: [netmod] opstate-reqs #3: Is there a requirement for asynchronous systems to provide a blocking config update?

> On Oct 14, 2015:7:51 PM, at 7:51 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > On 9/28/15, 1:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 03:03:57PM +, Kent Watsen wrote: >>> >>> Popping the stack on this issue, the issue remains as to what to do >>> with requirement 3: >>>

[netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Apologies but the WebEx unexpectedly terminated. I’ve started a new one here: https://ietf.webex.com/meet/netmod Please join there if you were on the call or want to join the interim meeting. —Tom ___ netmod mailing

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

I just unlocked it. Audio should work now. > On Oct 15, 2015:10:16 AM, at 10:16 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani > wrote: > > This one says the meeting is locked and one cannot join. > >> On Oct 15, 2015, at 7:12 AM, Nadeau Thomas > <mailto:tnad

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

@ietf.org > <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 5:16 PM > To: Nadeau Thomas > Cc: netmod WG > Subject: Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex > > This one says the meeting is locked and one cannot jo

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Some (including me) were having issues with “computer audio”. If you are, call into meeting using the dial info. > On Oct 15, 2015:10:18 AM, at 10:18 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > https://ietf.webex.com/meet/netmod > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.

Re: [netmod] interim meeting NEW webex

Webex hung up on us again. Please rejoin using the same URL. —Tom > On Oct 15, 2015:10:20 AM, at 10:20 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > Some (including me) were having issues with “computer audio”. If you > are, call into meeting using the dial info. >

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt

> On Oct 27, 2015:1:51 PM, at 1:51 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > Here are my review comments on YANG 1.1. > IMO the document is almost ready for publication. What remains before it is ready? —Tom > I plan to implement YANG 1.1 in YumaPro tools soon. > > > Andy > > _

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-08.txt

man > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > > > > On Oct 27, 2015:1:51 PM, at 1:51 PM, Andy Bierman > <mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > >

Re: [netmod] Is there an interim WG meeting today?

There is none. We are not allowed to have them this close to the IETF meeting. —Tom Sent from my Apple ][ > On Oct 29, 2015:10:42 AM, at 10:42 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: > > Hi, > > Just to check, I presume that there is no interim WG meeting today (I've not > seen any ag

Re: [netmod] draft netmod 94 minutes posted

It doesn't work for me either. I’ll file a case with the support folks to take a look. —Tom > On Nov 24, 2015:9:22 AM, at 9:22 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > Hi Kent, Andrew > > Do you have a pointer to the recordings please? I tried the audio streams on > the link below, but

[netmod] Call to adopt draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification-05 as NETMOD WG Draft

NETMOD: This is an official call to adopt draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification-05 as a NETMOD WG draft. Joel our AD has agreed with the chairs and authors that it is a good idea for this to go through the working group rather than it going as an AD-sponsored dra

Re: [netmod] Call to adopt draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification-05 as NETMOD WG Draft

:40 AM, at 4:40 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > > NETMOD: > > This is an official call to adopt > draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification-05 > as a NETMOD WG draft. Joel our AD has agreed with the chairs and authors > that it is a good idea

[netmod] IPR Check: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If you are listed as a document a

[netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

This email initiates a NETMOD WG Last call for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06. Please review the draft and make any comments to the list by Wednesday, 16 December, 2015 by 8AM EST. Tom and Kent (as NETMOD Co-chairs) ___ netmod maili

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

Dependance on 1.1 should not be an issue as that is almost ready to be approved. You should be building your model to comply with the 1.1 rules. —Tom > On Dec 11, 2015:8:00 AM, at 8:00 AM, William Lupton > wrote: > > All, > > The Broadband Forum would like to use the ietf-e

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

to the netmod milestones? > > Regards, > > Dan > > >> -Original Message- >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nadeau >> Thomas >> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 4:27 PM >> To: William Lupton >> Cc: netmod@i

[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

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

> 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 >> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. The minutes also show

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

Cool. Thanks for the update! > On Dec 15, 2015:2:19 PM, at 2:19 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > 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,

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

> On Dec 16, 2015:3:55 AM, at 3:55 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Dear all, >>> On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:34, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >>> >>> >>> NETMOD: >>> >>> The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked

[netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

This is a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. Please post comments on this draft by Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9AM EST. Tom/Kent ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] IPR Check: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01? If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? If you are listed as a docume

Re: [netmod] IPR Check: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

I have no nor know of any IPR Claims against this document. —Tom (speaking as an individual contributor) > On Dec 16, 2015:8:13 AM, at 8:13 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > This mail starts the IPR poll on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. > > Are you awa

[netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

This is a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. Please post comments on this draft by Wednesday, December 30, 2015 at 9AM EST. Tom/Kent ___ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

cability. > > > Andy > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > > This is a WG Last Call on draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01. > Please post comments on

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

type that matches against a host > name. > > Eliot > > > On 12/9/15 5:27 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> This email initiates a NETMOD WG Last call for >> draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06. >> Please review the draft and make any comments to the list by Wednesday

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

> On Dec 17, 2015:9:36 AM, at 9:36 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > > > > I’m struggling a bit to understand what is motivating you to ask this question.That is, as a tool vendor, I wouldn’t think that any decision made here would affect you immediately. My expectations a

Re: [netmod] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

You raise a good point. Do the contributors/editors have any thoughts on this suggestion? —Tom > On Dec 17, 2015:9:44 AM, at 9:44 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > > On 12/17/15 2:45 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> Do you mean an ASCII DNS name (versus a

Re: [netmod] module update rules

It would help to define this outside of the IETF context. As we are all well aware, there are many organizations outside of the IETF such as ODL, OpenConfig, IEEE, MEF, etc… that are now creating modules. —Tom > On Dec 18, 2015:1:42 PM, at 1:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On Dec 18, 2015:11:06 AM, at 11:06 AM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Ladislav Lhotka > wrote: > Hi, > > if we want people to take YANG modules appearing in I-Ds seriously and > implement them, then we should apply the revisioning rul

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On Dec 18, 2015:3:00 PM, at 3:00 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > >> On Dec 18, 2015:11:06 AM, at 11:06 AM, Andy Bierman > <mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> wr

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

> On Dec 21, 2015:8:55 AM, at 8:55 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >>> >>>> On Dec 17, 2015:9:36 AM, at 9:36 AM, Kent Watsen >>>> wro

Re: [netmod] NETMOD WG LC: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01

> On Dec 22, 2015:6:38 AM, at 6:38 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > > Jürgen, >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 06:47:49PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote: >> >>> I hope that nobody disagrees that the operational state design and how >>> to structure the models are the two blocking factors to publish YANG >>> mo

[netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

[moving the thread to its own discussion.] > This is a blocking factor that people are not considering: The RFC > process the > IETF has in place is not suitable for rapid/modern/canonical model > development. It will > be difficult for the IESG review process to scale to even a couple m

Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

? —Tom > On Dec 22, 2015:8:39 AM, at 8:39 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> On 22 Dec 2015, at 14:06, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> >> [moving the thread to its own discussion.] >> >>> This is a blocking factor that people are not consi

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On Dec 22, 2015:10:23 AM, at 10:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Mon, D

Re: [netmod] New Thread: IESG Review Process for Yang Models at the IETF

> On Dec 22, 2015:10:36 AM, at 10:36 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:22, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> >> The action I am trying to tease out of this thread is how do we take >> action >> going forward? There are many

Re: [netmod] module update rules

> On Dec 22, 2015:10:53 AM, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >

Re: [netmod] module update rules

thx! > On Dec 22, 2015:11:55 AM, at 11:55 AM, Andy Bierman > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Nadeau Thomas <mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com>> wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 2015:10:53 AM, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > >

[netmod] Resigning Chair Position

I am writing to the NETMOD WG to inform you all that I will be resigning my position as co-chair. I will remain on as co-chair and continue my duties until Benoit finds a suitable replacement, which he tells me will not be too long. It has been a challenge and pleasure serving the com

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] [Rtg-dt-yang-arch] Working group Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-06

Yes, this is correct. We agreed to this explicitly. —Tom > On Jan 11, 2016:6:29 AM, at 6:29 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > > I think we discussed at one of the previous IETFs that we will use > YANG 1.1 in the IETF once it is published. Please check the archives. > If I

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03.txt

> On Jan 12, 2016:4:04 PM, at 4:04 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > [As a contributor] > > From Benoit: > > Yes, I've seen those RFCs. The IETF is not really consistent regarding RFC > 2119 and requirement documents. > So I wanted to put the issue on the table. No strong view on way or the other. >

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03.txt

> On Jan 15, 2016:5:40 PM, at 5:40 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > [As a contributor] > > > And just when I thought we were done with this draft ;) > > > > > > > >>> I think that the text for 2A would be more clear using MUST rather than >>> may (in the sense that a compliant server must

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-04.txt

[Speaking as co-chair] Benoit, I believe the document is now ready for your AD review. —Tom > On Jan 22, 2016:8:37 PM, at 8:37 PM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > [As a contributor] > > This update contains the following changes: > > > 1) removed “(see term)” throughou

[netmod] Mini WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03

This message is to officially begin a mini WG last call on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03 Lada had to make a number of changes to the document based on feedback from the last call, and so the co-chairs felt that it was prudent to put this before the WG for a short LC period. I’d

[netmod] Mini WG Last Call draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

This message is to officially begin a mini WG last call on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07. Lada had to make a number of changes to the document based on feedback from the last call, and so the co-chairs felt that it was prudent to put this before the WG for a short LC period. I’d like

[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

ACL Doc Authors: What is your status and plan to address the numerous technical comments that have arisen since the WG LC? I know there are for example, numerous detailed comments from Juergen and I think Elliot Lear posted some too. —Tom

Re: [netmod] Mini WG Last Call draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07

-chair) > On Jan 28, 2016:10:52 AM, at 10:52 AM, Nadeau Thomas > wrote: > > > This message is to officially begin a mini WG last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07. Lada had to make a number of changes to the > document based on feedback from the last call,

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

address comments. Thanks, >> >> Lisa >> >> On 2/1/16, 8:01 AM, "netmod on behalf of Nadeau Thomas" >> wrote: >> >>> >>> ACL Doc Authors: >>> >>> What is your status and plan to address the numerous technica

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model status

model doesn’t require update, but it is better with > this suggestion > > Dean > >> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:52 PM, Nadeau Thomas wrote: >> >> >> Will your model require any updates once 1.1 is ratified? We don’t >> want to predicate having a

  1   2   >