Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
"Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)" <einarnn@cisco.com> Fri, 12 January 2018 10:52 UTC
Return-Path: <einarnn@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 544F312DA23 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 02:52:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 GqCPYGl5dU59 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 02:52:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 158F3126C23 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 02:52:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23188; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515754352; x=1516963952; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=8hOjDWBVRGDFF5vX5EmhbPN5BTfoQt2KB0kMJaMGNQc=; b=AnJn3JjzCf0oVlBK3XF2E7Dy8OnFduO5IIYqxFq13qJta26YUsD/HDxJ gdnL6o8Q9sAOJsd6Q84wi4mEWfznqXGt3DeW2tg4blffU+KetmTNdHHbw U1vZiUGmQEOabFBCx70Yao8MgpWJbYfcHPjt/72uQKMqCAWPwjzfdjHvg o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BrAgDpklha/4wNJK1eGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNBZnQnB4QAmQSCAnyYSwoYC4FegmtPAhqEJ0MUAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFIwEBAQECAQEBIRE6CwUHBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIjAwICAiULFAEICAIEAQ0FGooRCBCwDoInijsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEPgy2CFYNAKYF3WDaDLwEBAgGBRwcBAQgVAReDADGCNAWKY4dEkT0CiAqNP4IZijKHRYpoglaGIIMaAhEZAYE7ATYigVBvFT0qAYF/P4QYeIkiDxiBDYEXAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,348,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="336270859"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jan 2018 10:52:31 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w0CAqVY9020398 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:52:31 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:52:30 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-009.cisco.com ([64.101.220.149]) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com ([64.101.220.149]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Fri, 12 Jan 2018 05:52:30 -0500
From: "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)" <einarnn@cisco.com>
To: "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>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
Thread-Index: AQHTeZsGj/By4wgWGkSTA5QT6Ag4U6NN6XKHgBw2jXCAAgC0gIABaUYAgAAJBYCAAZLygIAARa0AgAEb34A=
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 10:52:29 +0000
Message-ID: <A351BFBA-526E-4F85-96F7-D95E58A374F9@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <51501b53-9693-4ecd-1493-e21263b22b19@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.106.8]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3154C7B8EFEC3E4FAE5CCAA7FD1BEBCF@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cpcyQ0LYtwiRmH2Jbeu2IcNV3xI>
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 10:52:37 -0000
Yes, Option 2 seems best. 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
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entit… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- [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… 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