Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 30 July 2018 10:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 DEBC6131012; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-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 JrzQf14rFi8W; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E64513101C; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 03:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6483; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1532946747; x=1534156347; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=91IoBhSfIVcGRaXiOYr3t9AEC7VW4w4qMFew3PQTcLk=; b=Hk2tu3e5Oiqiv71YlNJ/blOrV3tEiS9ORRRNUO5y/UtZaN7JI8Zgc8vk QUjltuDzk8A6oi+fXs1xPTtUhkWvDTpQtki2VPN2PwVtgptP66icQ7a82 43h6EjtHvUlHjSAdBHTMT+scyasVB+HCzD3OAJIHbKsVD/7tycVvKyaPs c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AEAgCW6F5b/xbLJq1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJXTYF6EoQmiGWNPQglkDuFKoFmC4RsAoMxNxUBAgEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAm0ohTcBBSMKQQYFEAsYKgICVwYBDAgBAYMcggCrYIEuH4Q/hWuJGYFBP4E?= =?us-ascii?q?5DIJfgSgZAYMEBQESAYMgglUCjSiMaAmPMQaBSIQagkyFWz6MIIVZgVciYXE?= =?us-ascii?q?zGggbFTuCaoIwgQUBCY0UPo1DgjoBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,422,1526342400"; d="scan'208,217";a="5444618"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 30 Jul 2018 10:32:25 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.106] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com [10.63.23.106]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w6UAWOXs005865; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:32:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model@ietf.org
References: <1ACE6CBB-98FF-4C3A-B169-F1AEC900AF8E@gmail.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <87b0231a-a388-2263-5976-01c2e4f4dafc@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:32:24 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1ACE6CBB-98FF-4C3A-B169-F1AEC900AF8E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------4E00A50B3B726C1E771FE34F"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.106, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/pptDgWPzsZ8r5y-N-PuOoHPSUec>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:32:30 -0000

As a co-author I support adoption of this work.

I'm not aware of any IPR related to this document.

Although this draft needs some minor further refinement and discussion, 
which will naturally happen as part of the WG process, I think that this 
draft is a good start and is heading in the right direction.

As stated in the RTGWG at IETF 102, I think that it is in IETF's 
interests to get YANG models quickly published for configuration models 
that cover the majority of standard configuration being used in the 
industry, and I see this draft as another step towards that goal.

Thanks,
Rob


On 26/07/2018 02:04, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> Dear RTGWG,
>
> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt 
> draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model as the working group document.
>
> The draft has been stable and provides all the additional arp pieces 
> that are not in RFC8344, it has been presented at IETF 102 and no 
> substantial comments have been received.
>
> Please indicate support or no-support by August 09, 2018
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond 
> to this
>
> email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
>
> The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document 
> will not
>
> advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each
>
> author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff & Chris
>