Hi Bo,
Thanks, and no worries.
Document has been approved. I would like to thank the authors, WG, and doc
shepherd for their work on this draft.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 11 November 2022 11:00
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc:
Hi Rob,
Sorry for the delay. Here is the update：
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm-15
Thanks,
Bo
发件人: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
发送时间: 2022年11月11日 10:37
收件人: Wubo (lana) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
抄送:
Hi Bo,
Just a quick reminder that you can post a -15 (which I don’t think that I have
seen), and then I can approve this.
Regards,
Rob
From: Wubo (lana)
Sent: 25 October 2022 08:26
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk;
Hi Rob,
Many thanks for your suggestion. We will submit R-15 to fix this when the I-D
submission reopen.
Thanks,
Bo
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 6:06 PM
To: Wubo (lana) ;
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm@ietf.org
Cc:
Hi Bo,
I think that “limit-number” name makes more sense in the context of the other
peer leaves around it when it is defined under “mac-addr-limit”, i.e., the
“time-interval”, and what action is being taken.
My “no hats” opinion is that I would still go for consistency with the other
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the review and suggestion.
Per the naming of "mac-limit-number", we are considering to be consistent with
L2NM definition:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9291:
| +--rw mac-policies
| | +--rw mac-addr-limit
Hi authors, shepherd,
Thanks for quickly posting a new version of
draft-ietf-opsawg-yang-vpn-service-pm addressing the AD comments during the
IESG review.
The changes all look good to me, except that I question one of the changes that
were made (in response to one of Eric's comments I think):
