IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Routing Area YANG Coordinators Wiki

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 24 July 2015 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB3E1B3009 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 0MBpvhLx8G98 for <routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 224731B3016 for <routing-discussion@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 01:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BVN39656; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:02:04 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 09:02:02 +0100
Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.10]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:01:56 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Gregory Mirsky <gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com>, David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>, "routing-discussion@ietf.org" <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Routing Area YANG Coordinators Wiki
Thread-Topic: Routing Area YANG Coordinators Wiki
Thread-Index: AQHQw8CKB8EJJqqM/EyBsPtwz6PwRp3pEJcwgAE059A=
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:01:55 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA847D0F8E@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <D1D3CEC6.190CBB%david.sinicrope@ericsson.com> <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221882A09@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7347100B5761DC41A166AC17F22DF11221882A09@eusaamb103.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.69.85]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA847D0F8Enkgeml501mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/vrDIxMoJH32Nq9O74dw796sLnXw>
X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list <routing-discussion.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/routing-discussion/>
List-Post: <mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion>, <mailto:routing-discussion-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:02:09 -0000

Greg, thanks for pointing out this inconsistency issue, your suggestion looks good, we will fix it.

发件人: Gregory Mirsky [mailto:gregory.mirsky@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2015年7月23日 15:38
收件人: David Sinicrope; routing-discussion@ietf.org; Qin Wu
主题: RE: Routing Area YANG Coordinators Wiki

Hi David and Bill,
I’ve reviewed the table and wonder why some YANG models of OAM tagged differently. For example, MPLS-TP OAM YANG model tagged as related to LIME, BFD – as OAM related and TWAMP as Measurement related. While all three are correct references all three equally apply to these models as BFD and TWAMP are OAM protocols and are relevant for work of LIME WG. Personally, I think that reference to OAM would be the most generic and still correct.

                Regards,
                                Greg

From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Sinicrope
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:22 PM
To: routing-discussion@ietf.org<mailto:routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Subject: Routing Area YANG Coordinators Wiki

Hi All,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgYangCoord
Above is a link to the Routing Area YANG Coordinators area that was established earlier this year to help track the YANG models being developed in the iETF Routing Area.
There are a number of resources on the wiki pages, but the coordinators would like to draw attention specifically to the “Summary of Routing Area YANG Drafts”
(The section with the big red text "* == YANG MODEL AUTHORS LOOK HERE == *”

These tables are intended to help summarize and track the YANG drafts in the Routing Area.    Draft authors and WG Chairs are requested to keep the wiki table updated as drafts are created and progressed through the document development process.  Instructions for completing a table row for a YANG model draft are provided.

Questions on the instructions should be directed to the Routing Area YANG Coordinators (Qin Wu​bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com> and David Sinicrope david.sinicrope@ericsson.com<mailto:david.sinicrope@ericsson.com> )

Thanks for your help and support keeping this information up to date.

Thanks,
Dave and Qin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email