Dear Tianran Zhou,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
opsawg Session 1 (2:00 requested)
Wednesday, 9 November 2022, Session I 0930-1130
Room Name: Mezzanine 10-11 size: 80
Hi All,
First the easy part I didn’t have any problems with the IEs.
Now for the registries.
To Benoit’s 3 use cases.
1. A new IPFIX IE is added in the registry
A collector now knows the name, type, and semantics of a new a new IE.
This allows the value to be named and stored, but
Hi:
Your github document is -03 and published is -03, so likely you want to make it
-04?
As no dhcp options are being defined and they are just being encapsulated in
Radius attributes, not exactly sure how much the DHC wg can (or needs to)
comment?
This basically changes things so you no
Hi Bernie, dhcwg,
We received a comment during the WGLC of this draft that might lead us to
revisit the design you have reviewed recently. This alternative design mirrors
what we have done in 7037 (dhcwg) but with DHCP options included in RADIUS. The
candidate text is available at:
Re-,
Works for me. Thanks.
I will run this candidate version with dhcwg as well.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Alan DeKok
> Envoyé : vendredi 14 octobre 2022 16:00
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : Ben Schwartz ; Joe Abley
> ; Ben Schwartz
> ; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
On Oct 14, 2022, at 5:47 AM,
wrote:
> Let's try to exercise this approach and see if there are not hidden
> complications vs. current design with known limitation. A drafty text (not
> yet in the main draft) can be seen at:
>
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 16:46, tom petch wrote:
> From: tirumal reddy
> Sent: 14 October 2022 09:22
>
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 16:55, tom petch ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> From: tirumal reddy mailto:kond...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57
>
> Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will
From: tirumal reddy
Sent: 14 October 2022 09:22
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 16:55, tom petch
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
From: tirumal reddy mailto:kond...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57
Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by Tom.
-09 looks
Yes. I've just verified it. Nikolai, thanks for raising it.
Regards,
Rob
From: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: 13 October 2022 13:48
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; RFC Errata System
; nmal...@ieee.org
Cc: luis-angel.mu...@vodafone.com; opsawg@ietf.org; Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Subject: Re:
The following errata report has been verified for RFC9291,
"A YANG Network Data Model for Layer 2 VPNs".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7162
--
Status: Verified
Type:
Henk Birkholz has requested publication of draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-12 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the OPSAWG working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/
___
OPSAWG
Dear OPSAWG members,
reading no objections, we'll start the submission to IESG.
Thanks again to Eliot and Scott for driving the work, to Qin as the
document shepherd and to all contributors and reviewers.
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 10.10.22 09:46, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
the
Re-,
Thanks for the feedback.
Let's try to exercise this approach and see if there are not hidden
complications vs. current design with known limitation. A drafty text (not yet
in the main draft) can be seen at:
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 16:55, tom petch wrote:
> From: tirumal reddy
> Sent: 13 October 2022 07:57
>
> Thanks Tom for the review. Yes, we will fix the references identified by
> Tom.
>
>
> -09 looks better.
>
> I still see a mix of TLS-1.2 and TLS-1-2; I am not sure if there is a
> rationale
Hi Joe,
That’s because network services are isolated/segregated by adequate addressing
schemes. I don’t expect that to change and see DNS service offered by operators
be muxed with other customler-facing services they offer.
Cheers,
Med
De : radext De la part de Joe Abley
Envoyé : jeudi 13
15 matches
Mail list logo
