Subject: Re: [netmod] Working Group Last Call: An NETCONF- and NETMOD-based Architecture for Network Management

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:05:18 +0100

On Sunday 28 February 2010 16.59.24 David Partain wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> This is a 10-day working group last call on the current working group
> document:
>
> - An NETCONF- and NETMOD-based Architecture for Network Management
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netmod-arch-03.txt
>
> This WGLC will end on March 10, 2010.  Please review the document and post
> your comments on the mailing list.

Hi,

The Last Call ends today.  Please get your comments in, even if it's just to 
say "I've read it and it's fine".  

Cheers,

David

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:21:51 +0100

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:05:18PM +0100, David Partain wrote:
> The Last Call ends today.  Please get your comments in, even if it's
> just to say "I've read it and it's fine".

I assume there is going to be another LC since we already have a new
version in place - or how do you plan to deal with that?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:05:53 +0100

On Wednesday 10 March 2010 13.21.51 Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > This WGLC will end on March 10, 2010.  Please review the document and
> > > post your comments on the mailing list.
> >
> > Hi,
> >

Hi,

Yes, I think we're going to have another.  First we need to work out the 
issues that have all been raised, and Anaheim will be used for that (along 
with other issues that come up on the other last calls).

I suspect that we'll have a draft post-IETF that will be WGLC'ed.

Cheers,

David

---

From: "Ray S. Atarashi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:18:43 +0900

Hi,

I read the draft but didn't send comments because I thought LC was 
finished. Could you give me a chance?

In Section 1, I prefer to be describe "why datamodel language is needed 
for NETCONF" first. In first four paragraphs, the reason was described 
already. After that, "why we defined YANG though there ware other 
datamodel languages" should be described.
Could you consider to separate section 1 into 2 parts?

And could you add a description about "who is a user of YANG?"

Thanks!
Ray