Hi all,
As mentioned in Yokohama, I believe this document is beneficial for the
actual deployment in the context of the coexistence of multiple softwire
techniques, hence I support advancing it.
Regards,
Linhui
2016-03-22 14:55 GMT+08:00 Yong Cui :
> Hi folks,
>
> The authors of draft-ietf-soft
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your comments, please see my comments inline with [LH].
Best,
Linhui
2016-07-12 18:31 GMT+08:00 Andy Wingo :
> Hello list,
>
> I have a change request for the draft-sun-softwire-yang-05 Internet
> Draft that defines a standard YANG model for lightweight 4-over-6
> binding ta
Hi all,
I support both drafts to be adopted. The requirement of having YANG models
for softwire mechanisms has emerged since IETF91 and I believe they are
mature to be adopted.
Best,
Linhui
2016-07-13 17:01 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer :
> Hi,
>
>
> This email commences a two week period for comments r
Hi Benoit and Per,
Thanks for the info, we will correct this in the next version.
Best,
Linhui
2016-08-31 18:59 GMT+08:00 Benoit Claise :
> draft-ietf-softwire-yang authors,
>
> Per and I have been investigating the YANG compilation error for this
> document.
> See http://www.claise.be/IETFYANG
Hi all,
As a reviewer of this draft, I support adopting this draft. This document
introduces the dynamic provisioning for lw4o6 that can actually make sense
to the RFC7341 & RFC7618. It works closely with
the draft-fsc-softwire-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt-06, which defines a set of dhcpv6
options for client
Hi Ole,
2016-12-01 16:59 GMT+08:00 :
> > As you may know, we are going to close the wg soon.
> > So before we close it, we would like to ask the wg to see if you are
> interested in advancing the draft as an Informational doc:
> > Dynamic IPv4 Provisioning for Lightweight 4over6
> > https://datat
Hi all,
As a co-author, I support the adoption. This document defines new DHCP4o6
options that make dynamic provisioning of softwire mechanisms come true.
Best,
Linhui
2017-02-23 1:37 GMT+08:00 Tomek Mrugalski :
> Hi,
>
> This message initiates a two weeks long DHC WG adoption call on:
>
> Titl
Hi,
I have had a review of the new version of this yang model. The model looks
much better than the previous version and many thanks for the authors'
effort. And from my perspective, I think this model could be further
discussed in the following aspects. Please find my comments in the
following.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the response, please see my comments inline.
BR,
Linhui
2018-01-12 17:17 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer :
> Hi Linhui,
>
> I agree with your comments on 1,3 and 5. Comments on 2&4 below.
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
> >
> > 2) The BR module should also augments ietf-interfaces since they are
>
2018-01-12 20:04 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer :
> Hi Linhui,
>
> > 4) The usage of choice statement is not very clear, why do we need to
>> use the 'case' and 'feature' statements together? It seems that we only
>> need one of them.
>>
>> [if - Well, a CE may implement binding and/or algorithm. If it impl
+--rw algo-instance* [id]
+--rw ...
BR,
Linhui
2018-01-12 20:48 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer :
> Hi Linhui,
>
> Could you provide a proposed structure for your suggestion of using only
> ‘if-feature’?
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
> On 12. Jan 2018, at 13:14, Linhui Sun wr
Hi all,
As a co-author, I support it. This document has been reviewed and refined
in several rounds and it seems that it's the right time to move it forward.
BR,
Linhui
2018-06-13 17:44 GMT+08:00 Sheng Jiang :
> This email announces a Softwire Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
>
>
>
> Since bo
12 matches
Mail list logo
