[netmod] Warren Kumari's No Objection on charter-ietf-netmod-08-02: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-netmod-08-02: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document

Re: [netmod] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23: (with COMMENT)

: >> -- >> >> Thank you for this document. >> >> I also prefer for TCP to be documented, if used in real world. > > I've seen this comment in Warren's comment at > https://datatracker.ietf

[netmod] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [netmod] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 6:32 PM Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2018, at 1:49 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-19: Discuss > > > > When respondin

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5617)

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:45 AM Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Hi, > > this erratum should be rejected. It is a substantial technical change of > the > spec, and section 9.9.2 doesn't indicate any possibility of using deref(). > > Yup, while it might be a good idea, it isn't an errata, and would need a

Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5642)

;> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Since the section so clearly writes about single quoted strings and >> > > double >> > > quoted strings, there can unfortunately be no interpretation that would >> >

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5807)

[ - RFC Ed (for clutter), + Benoit (who verified https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid4794) ] I'm trying to go through and clean up the outstanding Ops and Management Errata. I'm completely, 100% not a YANG / netmod person (I cannot even spell YANG!), but I *think* that this Errata should be verif

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (5784)

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 9:29 AM Per Hedeland wrote: > > On 2019-07-17 14:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > Its the first half of the sentence in my copy of RFC 7950. > > It believe that there is a problem with English language both in Qin's > understanding of the original text (which is correct

[netmod] Changing responsible AD for draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default

Hi there all, I have just reassigned the responsible AD for draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default from Ignas to myself. Rob Wilton (the incoming Management AD, CCed) will be doing the actual "work" part of this, I'm primarily acting as a proxy / clicking the buttons in the datatracker. Please welcom

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-13.txt

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 7:49 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Hi Qin, > > Thanks for your work and timely updates on this document. > > Warren, I think that we are good to go for IETF LC with the -14 version. Whoops, I had missed this; luckily Rob is on the ball and reminded me / pointed this