IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Wed, 06 October 2010 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <phil@juniper.net>
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 022F03A6F77 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.607
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, 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 U5LUHxpugoTf for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:50:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004033A6E6D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTKx+4890mmWAEiMJiBgyhdpHDc95G/U5@postini.com; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:51:40 PDT
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:50:42 -0700
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id o96DofU19115; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 06:50:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phil@juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o96DU1o1014393; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:30:01 GMT (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201010061330.o96DU1o1014393@idle.juniper.net>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20101006134329.GA54263@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 09:30:01 -0400
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:50:41 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>Since the document in question defines a protocol that carries XML,
>having this reference may seem different from requiring a reference to
>the YANG guidelines how to write a YANG proper module in every YANG
>module. At least in the SMIv2 space, we managed to live without it.

Are we talking about putting a reference to yang-usage in the
netconf-bis just to say that the new yang module follows those
guidelines?

Thanks,
 Phil

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email