Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 12 January 2018 18:56 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924FE128D2E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8bR-9981xBT for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886AA126D0C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:55:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=40647; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515783359; x=1516992959; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=JhxTO5W2xQs9IetLQu/vWaX8kiN4qdoApjOtpL9mNoI=; b=Agwy/WG5awSqCVKHHuvwNAi3P70sETXyJ1wAUKIP34yDq21D4MbpCLom yq+pKz4z81s+FSe57xL9oWU7ZqwzgUPe1RNLG8lvyvFa13Q9X/+5pN7dv Zhca3v8+B9qqQO/bMHRMH9i0MEkGeycXYW7zln4k6KK6MQ0Zb9ieDwkyk k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,350,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1377247"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2018 18:55:57 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0CItv1B006176; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:55:57 GMT
To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>, "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)" <einarnn@cisco.com>, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "bart.bogaert@nokia.com" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <20180109.163933.49682684192910889.mbj@tail-f.com> <AM4PR07MB1716D69A0AF0BBCD3BAF71D094110@AM4PR07MB1716.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20180110.144453.957272588242505523.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180111.144705.493071366326080006.mbj@tail-f.com> <51501b53-9693-4ecd-1493-e21263b22b19@cisco.com> <A351BFBA-526E-4F85-96F7-D95E58A374F9@cisco.com> <823fdeb7-3b4b-2504-364d-ef68502adccf@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <64740fb9-7f4c-59ee-ecd2-4474ae5deb77@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:55:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <823fdeb7-3b4b-2504-364d-ef68502adccf@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2471BAC3EEA934B9A4AC988A"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/HWZN-9qQBNTe7Wpd8F3HfCW1PPk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:56:05 -0000
On 1/12/2018 2:33 PM, Joe Clarke wrote: > On 1/12/18 05:52, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn) wrote: >> Yes, Option 2 seems best. > Agreed. I believe most assume these are static values from the vendor > that are not field-writeable (certainly that is true from what I've seen > here at Cisco). Yep, this is why I wrote in a previous email: For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me. serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO. So option 2 seems about right to me. Would be nice if the new draft explain that/how people can augment. Regards, Benoit (as a contributor) > > Joe > >> Cheers, >> >> Einar >> >> >>> On 11 Jan 2018, at 17:56, Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11/01/2018 13:47, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> To summarize this, I think we have three options for the three nodes >>>> 'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num': >>>> >>>> 1. Do nothing (keep the nodes as config true). >>>> >>>> 2. Make these three nodes config false (fairly simple change). >>>> (vendors can augment w/ their own config true nodes). >>>> >>>> 3. Add three new nodes for the configured values. >>>> >>>> >>>> After thinking about this some more, and discussing with Benoit, I >>>> think the best path forward is to do 2, i.e., mark the nodes >>>> 'model-name', 'mfg-name', and 'serial-num' as "config false". As such >>>> they would not be configurable, and thus contain the detected values. >>>> If no value is detected, the node is not present. >>> Option 2 suits me. It keeps it simple. >>> >>>> Note that 1 or 3 can be done in a future update to this module (or by >>>> a vendor). >>> Agreed. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> >>>> >>>> /martin >>>> >>>> >>>> Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> --- snip --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> state.”, so the above sentence only applies for the second case below. >>>>>> Ok. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The second case is that something is detected but it can’t be read. >>>>>>> We do not see a reason to use the value configured for the leafs >>>>>>> ‘serial-num’, ‘mfg-name’ and ‘model-name’ of a matching entry in the >>>>>>> configuration data. These leafs are defined as optional so why would >>>>>>> we report something entered by an operator in the operational >>>>>>> datastore that intends to report on what is detected? Is it not >>>>>>> better to not report them at all? In an NMDA context it would be >>>>>>> possible to have a different value (or no value at all) for certain >>>>>>> leafs while there is something in the running/intended datastore. >>>>>> The normal NMDA procedure for a configuration leaf is to repeat it in >>>>>> operational state. This is then the "applied configuration". >>>>>> I don't think we should have a special rule for these leafs. >>>>>> >>>>>> This also means that a client that just wants to read all the serial >>>>>> numbers can do so from one place, the operational state, regardless of >>>>>> how they came into existance. >>>>>> >>>>>> [Bogaert, Bart ] >>>>>> >>>>>> We do understand that a target of NMDA is to read out the actually >>>>>> applied data in one request. But the result should not be >>>>>> confusion. A key word is “applied”. >>>>>> >>>>>> Section 5.3 of draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09 also contains >>>>>> (I put a part of the section between ***): >>>>>> The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the >>>>>> combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except >>>>>> that configuration data nodes supported in a configuration datastore >>>>>> ***MAY be omitted from <operational> if a server is not able to >>>>>> accurately report them ***. >>>>> Note that this text talks about the *schema*. It is intended for >>>>> servers to migrate to NMDA without having to instrument all config >>>>> nodes in <operational> immediately. If you apply this to >>>>> ietf-hardware, it could be a server that implements the node >>>>> "serial-num" in config, but not in <operational> (which would be >>>>> weird). >>>>> >>>>>> For example, it is expected that the value of multiple leafs need to >>>>>> be a consistent set, e.g. the mfg-name, the model-name, and the >>>>>> serial-num. >>>>>> Suppose we have a use case in which a hardware component is >>>>>> planned/configured (e.g. a board supporting DSL interfaces) but a >>>>>> different one is plugged (e.g. a board supporting ethernet >>>>>> interfaces). >>>>>> Suppose it is possible to read some fields on the detected component >>>>>> but due to an issue not to read other fields. >>>>>> If in that case the operational datastore will be completed with the >>>>>> data taken from the running datastore, then the presented view might >>>>>> be inconsistent. >>>>> This is true for other similar nodes as well - "asset-id" and "uri". >>>>> >>>>>> The question is also: what data is applied? Our assumption: if there >>>>>> is a mismatch between detected versus configured hardware, then the >>>>>> interface/service related data that is configured consistently with >>>>>> the planned hardware is not applied on the mismatching >>>>>> hardware. I.e. the detected hardware is not brought in service so not >>>>>> ‘applied’, the operational datastore only (accurately) reports on what >>>>>> is detected. >>>>> If there is a mismatch and the server doesn't apply the configured >>>>> values, then obviously the configured 'mfg-name' etc are not copied to >>>>> <operational>. >>>>> >>>>>> We do not see this as a special rule for this data but rather would >>>>>> apply a general rule: >>>>>> - if there is a ‘missing resource’, then the data is not reported in the >>>>>> operational datastore. >>>>>> - If the server is not able to report accurately, then the data is >>>>>> omitted from the operational >>>>> I think that if you want complete separation between the values of >>>>> 'mfg-name', 'model-name', and 'serial-num' in configuration and >>>>> operational state, then these should be modelled as separate leafs. >>>>> We should have a config false leaf 'serial-num' that only contains the >>>>> detected value (if found), and a config true leaf 'config-serial-num' >>>>> or something, that contains the configured serial number. >>>>> >>>>> But if this is the case, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to leave >>>>> such additional config objects to vendors, and simply make these three >>>>> nodes config false in ietf-hardware. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /martin >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, Bart >>>>>> >>>>>> /martin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, Bart >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert >>>>>>> Wilton >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:14 PM >>>>>>> To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Martin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 21/12/2017 11:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I need WG input on this issue. The question is how to handle >>>>>>>> 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name'. I think they should all >>>>>>>> be treated the same. Based on previous WG discussion (see e.g. the >>>>>>>> mail thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13"), I think they >>>>>>>> should all be configurable, but the configured value is only used in >>>>>>>> operational state if the system cannot read it from the hardware. >>>>>>> I think that this approach is probably OK: >>>>>>> - The client can always see the real value if it is available. >>>>>>> - If it is not available then they can assign a value via >>>>>>> configuration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was also considering an alternative approach of having a separate >>>>>>> set of config false leaves for the "burnt in values". And then having >>>>>>> the configurable leaves always override the default operational >>>>>>> values. E.g. similar to how an interface MAC address would expect to >>>>>>> be handled. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But one set of leaves is probably sufficient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Rob >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I suggest the following changes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> leaf serial-num { >>>>>>>> type string; >>>>>>>> config false; >>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>> "The vendor-specific serial number string for the >>>>>>>> component. The preferred value is the serial number >>>>>>>> string actually printed on the component itself (if >>>>>>>> present)."; >>>>>>>> reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum"; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> leaf serial-num { >>>>>>>> type string; >>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>> "The vendor-specific serial number string for the >>>>>>>> component. The preferred value is the serial number >>>>>>>> string actually printed on the component itself (if >>>>>>>> present). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This leaf can be configured. There are two use cases for >>>>>>>> this; as a 'post-it' note if the server cannot determine >>>>>>>> this value from the component, or when pre-provisioning a >>>>>>>> component. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the server can determine the serial number from the >>>>>>>> component, then that value is always used in operational >>>>>>>> state, even if another value has been configured."; >>>>>>>> reference "RFC 6933: entPhysicalSerialNum"; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And corresponding text for 'mfg-name' and 'model-name'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And also: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OLD: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the server detects a new hardware component, it >>>>>>>> initializes a list entry in the operational state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the server does not support configuration of hardware >>>>>>>> components, list entries in the operational state are >>>>>>>> initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the >>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise, the following procedure is followed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in >>>>>>>> the intended configuration with values for the nodes >>>>>>>> 'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to >>>>>>>> the detected values, then: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1a. If the configured entry has a value for 'mfg-name' >>>>>>>> that is equal to the detected value, or if the >>>>>>>> 'mfg-name' value cannot be detected, then the list >>>>>>>> entry in the operational state is initialized with the >>>>>>>> configured values for all configured nodes, including >>>>>>>> the 'name'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise, the list entry in the operational state is >>>>>>>> initialized with values for all nodes as detected by >>>>>>>> the implementation. The implementation may raise an >>>>>>>> alarm that informs about the 'mfg-name' mismatch >>>>>>>> condition. How this is done is outside the scope of >>>>>>>> this document. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1b. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration >>>>>>>> entry), the list entry in the operational state is >>>>>>>> initialized with values for all nodes as detected by >>>>>>>> the implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the /hardware/component list in the intended >>>>>>>> configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if >>>>>>>> it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in >>>>>>>> (1)."; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the server detects a new hardware component, it >>>>>>>> initializes a list entry in the operational state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the server does not support configuration of hardware >>>>>>>> components, list entries in the operational state are >>>>>>>> initialized with values for all nodes as detected by the >>>>>>>> implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Otherwise, the following procedure is followed: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. If there is an entry in the /hardware/component list in >>>>>>>> the intended configuration with values for the nodes >>>>>>>> 'class', 'parent', 'parent-rel-pos' that are equal to >>>>>>>> the detected values, then the list entry in operational >>>>>>>> state is initialized with the configured values, >>>>>>>> including the 'name'. The leafs 'serial-num', >>>>>>>> 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' are treated specially; see >>>>>>>> their descriptions for details. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. Otherwise (i.e., there is no matching configuration >>>>>>>> entry), the list entry in the operational state is >>>>>>>> initialized with values for all nodes as detected by >>>>>>>> the implementation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If the /hardware/component list in the intended >>>>>>>> configuration is modified, then the system MUST behave as if >>>>>>>> it re-initializes itself, and follow the procedure in >>>>>>>> (1)."; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /martin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/20/2017 4:00 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>> Only kept the relevant excerpts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933: >>>>>>>>>>>>> entPhysicalSerialNum >>>>>>>>>>>>> entPhysicalAlias >>>>>>>>>>>>> entPhysicalAssetID >>>>>>>>>>>>> entPhysicalUris >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO. >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, this was not the intention. In >>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03 this is configurable. I missed this >>>>>>>>>>>> in the conversion to NMDA. >>>>>>>>>>> Ah. So no good news in this case... >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this was added per request from the WG. See e.g. the >>>>>>>>>>>> thread "draft-ietf-netmod-entity issue #13". >>>>>>>>>>> Sure. It was mainly an observation. >>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think that what we have now is probably not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> I think that all nodes 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name' >>>>>>>>>>>> should be config true, and the description of list 'component' >>>>>>>>>>>> updated to reflect that all these tree leafs are handled the same way. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to know what the WG thinks about this. >>>>>>>>>>> Talking as a contributor this time. >>>>>>>>>>> It seems that inventory management is kind of broken when someone >>>>>>>>>>> can change 'serial-num', 'mfg-name', and 'model-name. >>>>>>>>>> They can't really change them. The configured values are only >>>>>>>>>> used (i.e. visible in the operational state) if the device cannot >>>>>>>>>> detect them automatically. I.e., they work as "post-it" notes only. >>>>>>>>> If I look at, for example, the mfg-name, description, this is not >>>>>>>>> what it says. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> leaf mfg-name { >>>>>>>>> type string; >>>>>>>>> description >>>>>>>>> "The name of the manufacturer of this physical component. >>>>>>>>> The preferred value is the manufacturer name string >>>>>>>>> actually printed on the component itself (if present). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that comparisons between instances of the model-name, >>>>>>>>> firmware-rev, software-rev, and the serial-num nodes are >>>>>>>>> only meaningful amongst component with the same value of >>>>>>>>> mfg-name. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the manufacturer name string associated with the >>>>>>>>> physical component is unknown to the server, then this >>>>>>>>> node is not instantiated."; >>>>>>>>> reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>: >>>>>>>>> entPhysicalMfgName"; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, Benoit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /martin >>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> netmod mailing list >>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> netmod@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
- [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06 Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Dan Romascanu
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Joe Clarke
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Benoit Claise