Hi Haoyu, Draft Authors,
after reading draft-song-ifit-framework-09, whose adoption I support,
FWIW I have a few comments that I think should be addressed in future
revisions of the draft:
Section 1, 2nd paragraph: line of argumentation why "radical rethinking
of existing methods" needs to
I am not aware of any IPR (responding as contributor).
Thanks
--- Alex
On 9/23/2020 8:41 PM, Pedro Martinez-Julia wrote:
> Dear Tianran,
>
> I am one of the authors of the document and I am not aware of any IPR
> that applies to it.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 02:58:51AM
000 Centralized Virtual Router"
PID: R-IOSXRV9000-CC, VID: V01, SN: 76E77892EA1
3. The author has previously discussed the extension of sites and
licenses.
4. The authors and contributors took a quick look at the merged model,
and we plan to continue the discussion on this week.
Thanks,
I think that options 1 and 2 are closer than we think and can be aligned
if we can agree on getting rid of the network-hardware-inventory
container object that is defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory.
This will allow us to move forward quickly with a model for network
hardware
Hi all,
I have been looking at both of the inventory models that have been
proposed and think that they are actually closer than it might seem and
that it should be relatively straightforward to align them.
The main obstacle seems to the top container object
"network-hardware-inventory" in
to include is static value.
Best,
Tianran
Sent from WeLink
*发件人： *Daniele Ceccarelli
*收件人： *Tianran Zhou
*抄送： *Alexander L Clemm;opsawg
*主题： *Re: [OPSAWG] Some thoughts on Green Networking Metrics
*时间： *2023-08-21 20:33:57
HI
Hi Daniele,
apologies for the late reply.
I think inventory is somewhat orthogonal to this, but of course devices
and equipment (including chassis, line cards, equipment holders etc)
will be considered part of inventory. Therefore via transitive closure
it is certainly conceivable to make
Clearly we need to keep the registries up to date. I support the
adoption as well, including the other draft as mentioned by Thomas.
As a side note, for future reference it would be good to have some
guideline when the registry can simply be updated versus when a separate
draft is required
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Alexander L Clemm
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 5:35 PM
To: opsawg@ietf.org; n...@irtf.org
Cc: draft-cx-green-metr...@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] New revision of "Green Networking Metrics"
(draft-cx-green-metrics)
Hi,
we just posted an u
Hello Eve,
thank you for your great feedback! And apologies for the long delay in
responding. Please find my responses inline, below. We will also be
posting an update to the draft momentarily with your feedback
incorporated (hence crossposting to opsawg)
Best
--- Alex
On 11/29/2022
Hi,
we just posted an updated revision of "Green Networking Metrics"
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cx-green-metrics/), including
various editorial improvements and incorporating highly useful feedback
and suggestions from a number of people including Eve Schooler,
Alexandru
Hi,
FYI, we have just posted an update to the draft "Green Networking
Metrics", renamed draft-cs-opsawg-green-metrics to reflect the fact that
we consider OPSAWG to be the appropriate landing spot, per earlier
discussions after presentation of predecessor versions at previous
IETFs. The
Hello Jari,
many thanks for your review comments, much appreciated! I just posted
an updated revision -02 which takes your comments into account, here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cx-opsawg-green-metrics-02.
Some quick inline replies below. I am cc'ing opsawg, since this is
13 matches
Mail list logo
