IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sun, 11 May 2008 11:43 UTC

Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf-archive@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E69428C15A; Sun, 11 May 2008 04:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165D828C119 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2008 04:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VX+5T4Wn3xR5 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 May 2008 04:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2517228C15E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 May 2008 04:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,468,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="7895502"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2008 07:43:31 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4BBhVfi032267; Sun, 11 May 2008 07:43:31 -0400
Received: from adsl-247-6-fixip.tiscali.ch (rtp-vpn2-24.cisco.com [10.82.240.24]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4BBhUav011612; Sun, 11 May 2008 11:43:31 GMT
Message-ID: <4826DBE2.6000109@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 13:43:30 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sharon Chisholm <schishol@nortel.com>
References: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B41435D6BF@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4143A2275@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com><4811C0B5.7010907@cisco.com> <20080425114407.GC19025@elstar.local> <002101c8a955$4e0565b0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4145E07E1@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com> <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4146E002D@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <713043CE8B8E1348AF3C546DBE02C1B4146E002D@zcarhxm2.corp.nortel.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=545; t=1210506211; x=1211370211; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; z=From:=20Eliot=20Lear=20<lear@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Netconf]=20Notifications=3A=20Proposed =20Edits=20to=20ResolveDiscuss=09Issues |Sender:=20 |To:=20Sharon=20Chisholm=20<schishol@nortel.com>; bh=BLTfFTg8hvkKzg8fjHmItLyVDEVWBlMRN6y4o5xK34E=; b=mqBNiZxu2FDG49Joo6kpphUNsJ4bfDhKkEIdPhdaBu/uVoO8h3VRlxgEb9 A0YUQe6kzDC9kpoJ7iOxJZowElRytqvydHw7Yw2uv6enfessOK4xQs7cCqqv eCDGVoT+qP;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=lear@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Notifications: Proposed Edits to ResolveDiscuss Issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org

Greetings Sharon, and sorry for the delay (was on holiday),

As to the below, my rule would be simple: have one reference.  I 
understand Juergen's point, but I don't feel strongly as to which 
approach to take so long as it's one approach.
> 1) Keep both references
> 2) Just have a reference to RFC3339
> 3) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4 and appendix A
> 4) Just have a reference to RFC3339 section 4.4
> 5) Just have a reference to RFC339 appendix A
>   


And so I would be happy with [2], [4], or [5].

Eliot
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email