IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <eric.gray@ericsson.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 B930F12D5D4 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gGlCbxLfIPA9 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (usplmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCA4C12D5B1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 06:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f79fa6d0000057a9-21-570515be53ac
Received: from EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.84]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3D.06.22441.EB515075; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:57:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC004.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 09:57:56 -0400
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
Thread-Index: AdGQDFCGfeqiXdK4SpWO63WB0/5TWA==
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:57:54 +0000
Message-ID: <3ED0CE30-93F9-4DBF-9129-DBA57C812493@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha1"; boundary="Apple-Mail-03A6E4C9-EA4E-4E65-9C01-743D42B45B53"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPiO4+UdZwg+N3bSzmX2xkdWD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxroV51gKjqVXXH/7hL2B8UBKFyMHh4SAicS1WT5djJxAppjE hXvr2boYuTiEBI4ySqx8f44dwlnGKLGkawEbSBWbgIbEsTtrGUFsEQF1iZk7QTo4OIQFMiRO nJODCGdK/J69mBnC1pPYeeAYK4jNIqAi8eLUayYQm1fAXuL30k8sIDYj0OLvp9aAxZkFxCVu PZnPBHGQiMTDi6fZIGxRiZeP/7GC3MMsMJlRYsH1GYwQgwQlTs58wjKBUXAWkv5ZyOpmIamD KIqX+L3mIhuELS+x/e0cZghbU2J/93KoGkWJKd0P2SFsDYnObxNZMcWtJWb8Ogg1x1Ti9dGP jMhqFjDyrGLkKC0uyMlNNzLcxAiMrWMSbI47GPf2eh5iFOBgVOLhXZDLEi7EmlhWXJl7iFEF qPXRhtUXGKVY8vLzUpVEeFM4WMOFeFMSK6tSi/Lji0pzUosPMUpzsCiJ83pH/gsTEkhPLEnN Tk0tSC2CyTJxcEo1MC591rKVNazlu0pt55eZMa+7AxfP2vZzn8Cho7nz0zg/MS3nk7ipbr7j 0bQqZwbX/JxstSDf76Yhx1ZeWvL7gRHjI967TK6Gx5NnTY/l+uRQxMp/6p2t4c+XQQm8bV6v /pgJlxoZ3tSesdRJnvvIojvdqlKRZ9Nfxi7nmV4ln68TJ7FSRj7sjBJLcUaioRZzUXEiAKIB 6fC1AgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/tlTfMIfP9MB32wVBuTCigX5QpUg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 13:58:01 -0000

Apologies for responding so late to this message.

I only recently was apprised of this draft and I wanted to know if the authors can explain what the draft offers that is not already easily supported using RFC 7223?

If it is possible to support the capabilities explicitly targeted in this draft, using the existing model, does it make sense to introduce a new set of enhancements that make it possible to represent the same concepts in two ways?

--
Eric

-----------------
Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Mon, 29 February 2016 23:07 UTCShow header
The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed properly. Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never addressed. Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now? Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin). Can others that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so? Thanks, Netmod Chairs From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. The minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now. Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document. Thanks, Kent 
Sent from my iPad

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email