Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Thu, 01 November 2018 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 8C4C91294D0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 8sUgYuxXgr6N for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 005151277BB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4168; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1541081905; x=1542291505; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=K4+jHTppqb7GDWWcJLesfHoyembuqX4pDm9XC2Hbcws=; b=OJVSHFWq8mBSOn3sXbHASuRTpI/Ryko9zS3uzdNa46b07snpYdPdlYzH vklmdbV2Ly7F3Z0ueKBHBUrOXBE303d2999r7OOoUBVx3bIro57pvhJIy Vk8oH4WTFnRggsbkJc/XyHCEkaBr/3bOU0Vok6h/9ZhG1iQ3qZIZnYv7u k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAAC2Cttb/4cNJK1hAxkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVIDAQEBAQELAYIEZn8oCoNslC6CDZcrFIFmCwEBGAu?= =?us-ascii?q?EA0YCF4MiIjUMDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTsBAQEDAQEhEToZAgIBBgIOAggCAiM?= =?us-ascii?q?DAgICGQwLFAEQAgQBEoMhAYIBD4xgm06BLoE4gnUBhWkFBYEGimEXggCBOB+?= =?us-ascii?q?CTIMbAQECgSwBEgE2CiaCPTGCJgKOcpAwCQKGaooeGIFUjn+JP4NCig8CERS?= =?us-ascii?q?BJh4BNmRxcBU7KgGCQYY4hGGFPm8BiQiBH4EfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,452,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="474208596"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Nov 2018 14:17:55 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wA1EHtEP007992 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:17:55 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:17:54 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:17:54 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Thread-Index: AQHUb8bb5pZToCjlLEK5aT+9YAPiF6U5jUSAgAAFyYCAAYQAgP//5MEA
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:17:54 +0000
Message-ID: <0DBCF214-C6AB-45F3-8CD7-12C8C6004B70@cisco.com>
References: <A4FEB052-83A2-4823-8258-A401A0348E83@juniper.net> <87y3aejo9y.fsf@nic.cz> <20181031124643.vuaakszwepqqgooy@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B0CCE91@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B0CCE91@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E87384009547DE44A1A3CA156F534E68@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.154, xch-rtp-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/kh2BtBY0gIPfxuno49LsYLblnjs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 14:18:28 -0000

Hi Qin,

We'd tried to converge on geo-coordinates in the protocols and received and a rather wide range of opinions as to the precision and what was required. An IETF consensus is required and not everyone is going to be happy. However, I'm not sure where this work lies and it hasn't been a priority for me. In fact, I let my draft expire: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-acee-ospf-geo-location-05.txt. I think trying to adding these before this happens could delay the BIS update. 

Thanks,
Acee

On 11/1/18, 7:55 AM, "netmod on behalf of Qin Wu" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

    I am wondering if we can add longitude, latitude in DMS or decimal degree,
    Further we can consider to add
    Postal-code, Country-code like Location type.
    
    -Qin
    -----邮件原件-----
    发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Juergen Schoenwaelder
    发送时间: 2018年10月31日 20:47
    收件人: netmod@ietf.org
    主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
    
    Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on a computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a bit to see what I can recover.
    
    /js
    
    On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 
    > another update that was discussed recently is a clarification of the 
    > XPath context for the xpath1.0 type.
    > 
    > Lada
    > 
    > Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:
    > 
    > > NETMOD WG,
    > >
    > > A conversation in NETCONF WG regarding the yang-push noted that it 
    > > might be time to update RFC 6991, in particular to introduce a type for time-duration.
    > >
    > >   
    > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KaUJloIShkLNIXTuHZNwB-
    > > SYBnQ
    > >
    > > In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 
    > > 5322 (Internet Message Format) including perhaps:
    > >
    > >   - email-address        (addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1)
    > >   - named-email-address  (name-addr, per Section 3.4)
    > >
    > >
    > > Kent // contributor
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > netmod mailing list
    > > netmod@ietf.org
    > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    > 
    > --
    > Ladislav Lhotka
    > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
    > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > netmod mailing list
    > netmod@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    
    -- 
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    netmod@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod