Hi Chairs, folks,
I support the Last Call of this draft.
The approach defined in this draft is very useful for operators who have
deployed SRv6, and the text is well written, I hope it can progress and enter a
new stage to meet the requirement of SRv6 operation.
Thanks are given to the
Hi,
Speaking with my hat of software developer: I have implemented this in
the free open-source flow collector pmacct (*) as part of the IETF 115
hackathon and found no issues. I hence support WGLC of the document.
Paolo
(*) https://github.com/pmacct/pmacct
On 30/11/22 10:53, Joe Clarke
Hi Automation Gurus,
YANG modules may be treated like a "digital twin" of the network with different
resolution/accuracy (depending on Module details).
It looks like RFC 8969 is discussing that different YANG models (for different
layers or functions) of the same network should be the
Hi Med,
On 11/30/2022 4:12 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi all,
This version addresses all the comments raised in my previous review
of the document. I have only very few comments:
* Section “5.9. srhActiveSegmentIPv6Type”: please add the pointer
to the IANA registry
Dear OPSAWG,
As a contributor, I believe this work is ready and necessary for SRv6 networks.
I support the WG LC.
Regards,
Alex
> On 30 Nov 2022, at 14:53, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> wrote:
>
> Hello, WG. As discussed at IETF 115, we want to conduct a WG LC for
>
