Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Hi Adrian, > In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be renamed to RFC 8199 > "Network Element YANG module" (this is what you did in figure 4 anyway) I believe we are separating the "device configuration model" that is used to talk to an NE, and a "network configuration

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Hey Benoit, Thanks for the review. > Figure 3: Network configuration model is a brand new term that is only > mentioned > in the figure, and not explained. OMG! That is a good catch. > In the same figure, could the "Device Configuration Model" be renamed to RFC > 8199 > "Network Element

Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Warren, thanks. Updating now. A > -Original Message- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari > Sent: 05 September 2017 13:16 > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model- > explained >

[OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Apologies, I forgot to CC the WG. I'll also be asking Benoit to give it the once over, as he is much more familiar with this topic. W -- Forwarded message -- From: Warren Kumari Date: Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:43 PM Subject: AD Review of