IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 22 June 2017 01:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@slice.pfrc.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D211129329 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 jJ98X7BvWNfE for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6244120721 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 95D8A1E34A; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 21:12:36 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-06.txt
Message-ID: <20170622011236.GK2289@pfrc.org>
References: <149736763440.7477.10138004135435824433@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170620192616.GB2289@pfrc.org> <CA+b+ER=SnJCu+BTpPKs+oOd0sAuPKTM1NCN4h9rYWBh=aX9feA@mail.gmail.com> <20170620194357.GD2289@pfrc.org> <D5704EFC.B617C%acee@cisco.com> <CA+b+ERnpTGYzoZ_vqr=6hZy7E51tsJPLf6k+6=P-2Rmuxjesiw@mail.gmail.com> <D5705923.B61A1%acee@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D5705923.B61A1%acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/5Kk8ciY3oBgbcS5uPGLR1_nQmOs>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 01:03:45 -0000

Acee,

Just so I have your intent right:

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:15:07PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Feel free to suggest validated common YANG typedefs for consideration by the Routing Design Team…. I’m not worried about adding needed types for a few more weeks. It is the few more quarters that I’m worried about. This is also consistent with the direction we are receiving from the ADs.

Are you saying that for the issues that have been raised about the
route-target type (existing) that no action will happen without getting
supplied a diff?

-- Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email