Thank you Henk / Chairs. We have resubmitted the draft as
draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-00.
Thank you also to the Group for the constructive feedback.
Looking forward to working with you all on this.
Cheers
John
On 02/02/2024, 12:41, "OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz"
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.
We received a significant amount of positive replies, no objections, and
willingness to review.
The chairs believe this I-D is ready
c.ietf.org
<mailto:40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org>]
发送时间: 2024年1月31日 20:25
收件人: Qin Wu mailto:bill...@huawei.com>>; Evans, John
mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk>>; Henk Birkholz
mailto:henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de>>;
OPSAWG mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG
-邮件原件-
发件人: Evans, John [mailto:jevanamz=40amazon.co...@dmarc.ietf.org]
发送时间: 2024年1月31日 20:25
收件人: Qin Wu ; Evans, John ; Henk
Birkholz ; OPSAWG
主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02
Hi Qin,
> [Qin Wu] Maybe a new section can be added to clar
Hi Qin,
> [Qin Wu] Maybe a new section can be added to clarify the relation with
> RFC8343.
We will explicitly call out the relationship to data models.
> the table in section 3 just provides model structure but doesn't specify
> parameters details.
Yes - agreed - we will expand on that
>
Hi, John:
> I am wondering whether this draft should update [RFC8343] to address such
> limitation.
Ultimately, I think we should update the corresponding data models to reflect
whatever we agree in this draft, should we progress it. In this specific case,
RFC8343 has reflected what is in
Hi Qin,
Thank you for your feedback.
> 1. what is the difference between packet loss and packet discard, it seems
> this two terms are used interchangeably in the draft, in some places
> packet discard reporting is used, while in some other places, packet loss
> reporting, which I think lack
Hi,
I have read the latest version of this draft and have the following comments:
1. what is the difference between packet loss and packet discard, it seems this
two terms are used interchangeably in the draft, in some places packet discard
reporting is used, while in some other places, packet
Hi Benoit,
Thanks for your feedback.
> I mean: what is the value of an information model without a respective
> data model, or a mapping to data model(s)?
Whilst it's true that having a data model is essential for implementing an
information model effectively, our focus is on standardising a
Dear all,
See in-line.
On 1/17/2024 12:51 PM, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html
ending on Wednesday, January 31st.
As a reminder, this I-D describes an
Hi Authors,
I read this draft and I think this work is valuable.
There are several comments for your consideration.
1. We have YANG as the modeling language for configuration DM. For this draft,
do you have any formal language for the IM? While I think the tree diagram is
also clear, I am
Hi Everyone,
I also support adoption of this document. Thank you to the authors for
accepting my suggestions for a small part of its content!
-David
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
Dear all,
I also support adopting this document and appreciate its value for IXs.
(Full disclosure: I contributed to the document in earlier versions before it
was presented here).
Best regards,
Marcos Sanz
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Henk Birkholz
> Enviado el: miércoles, 17 de enero
Hi all,
I support adopting this document.
The authors kindly addressed many of my comments in -02.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : OPSAWG De la part de Henk Birkholz
> Envoyé : mercredi 17 janvier 2024 13:52
> À : OPSAWG
> Objet : [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
Hi,
As I think I already had the opportunity to express in past meetings, this
proposal is of high interest for service providers. I support adoption.
Be goode,
--
“Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno”
Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/dr2lopez/
e-mail:
Dear OPSAWG,
I read the document and think it is very valuable for network operators. I like
that it is defined as information module so later we can see how this would be
applicable in IPFIX and YANG.
Best wishes
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Henk
16 matches
Mail list logo
