Dear OPSAWG and IPPM,
We received at IETF 115 some feedback and comments. We added a terminology
section, the reference to RFC 9232 Network Telemetry Framework and some minor
editorial changes.
As always, feedback and comments are very welcome.
Looking forward for the adoption call at OPSAWG.
The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG
Network Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
On Dec 19, 2022, at 11:53 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> It isn't really clear to me why some of the registries are needed,
> specifically the ones in 8.4.1 and 8.4.2. Why not allow any v4 or v6 DHCP
> attribute to be carried within the DHCPv6-Options or DHCPv4-Options field?
The
Hi,
Thanks for this document. Here are my AD review comments for
draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-07
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 2, sec 1. Introduction
This document specifies two new RADIUS attributes: DHCPv6-Options
(Section 3.1) and DHCPv4-Options (Section 3.2) Attributes.
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: 19 December 2022 14:19
Hi Tom,
My understanding is that service is the top list (i.e., node/service) and the
saps are in the per service child list:
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:
+--rw service* [service-type]
Hi Eliot, Scott,
Thanks for this document. Here is my AD review for
draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-12.
Moderate level comments:
(1) p 3, sec 1. Introduction
To enable application-layer discovery, this memo defines a well-known
URI [RFC8615]. Management or orchestration tools can
Hi Kevin,
Sorry for the delay. Here are my AD review comments for
draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-10. All my comments are pretty minor. Please
let me know if you have any questions/comments, or otherwise can just post an
updated version which I can then send off for IETF LC.
Minor level
Hi Med,
Great, thanks. I've request IETF LC on -12.
If any clarifications or changes are required based on the question raised by
Tom then please can you resolve that as part of the IETF LC.
Regards,
Rob
> -Original Message-
> From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
> Sent: 16 December
Hi Tom,
My understanding is that service is the top list (i.e., node/service) and the
saps are in the per service child list:
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node:
+--rw service* [service-type]
+--rw service-type identityref
From: OPSAWG on behalf of
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 12 December 2022 12:52
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the follow-up.
After rereading the initial proposed updated text, I think that you have a
valid point about the need for more clarity when describing the relationship
between the various
10 matches
Mail list logo
