From nobody Fri Oct 3 09:30:42 2014 Return-Path: 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 0AEB91A0390; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:30:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 8lh6MAAlhyXd; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A4D1A0379; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 09:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s93GUI1E016430; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:30:18 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s93GUH4p016410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:30:18 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , , References: <20141003153712.10842.27062.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20141003153712.10842.27062.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: FW: WG Review: BGP Enabled Services (bess) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:30:12 +0100 Message-ID: <0a9e01cfdf27$4edfeb90$ec9fc2b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQHHpq1sE18ASYmn/XZhikB1G5mQQZwvAJqg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20994.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.231-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--16.231-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: rqmDq8+jU9O68Mln9Nwu0y/MZ1E/Ptpxt3aeg7g/usAutoY2UtFqGEvV O7EcQqdbJmLqKu2yqdnvkzitR82DjT+YkS80Uv51CFaAixm5eU+Hxi2fvkKUM0SVpnjjB2vkwRz 9azOIZGMlpVclvjJJDCTmHbEJ0nNdeYojpvrZ9+cS3RGfZcILv6SrVYfmfZT8Ed+K6O5Nt53zb5 kmgp405TmoOWEBgQUvShDPPqb0JNqCLUZ3A9cbBWgws6g0ewz2lnrMq7Sriu3jsTquy0JRi+sDA +IumPfLMiP3JgLmy75SQfAAka0pZqoDZpNjSrDV1x307doliZvomPrNi98UBPgnJH5vm2+gNTDt WcfAQQpR8ca2I5imNDobWbmQlX1eX/LM4Em7bYIx87MtvE/hlZqCl1R34jDPOcqlsYvgKFXeDaw 3ixkM75zRNqTUNarR1GzjMWYTqTl+HQEHIpIak691/YHX0i1lfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8M8943 oc3p3sq7rFUcuGp/EgBwKKRHe+rzNvLsMhxFYGMHRy6p/Q3pO5ZDbVa/ELbdAYjCh7rOTCcTlGM E7gGsw= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/Qm5Q7NxU-RK3Y9ipDDMLaZ6VjO4 Cc: idr@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:30:23 -0000 Heads-up. BESS charter is in IETF-wide review. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: IETF-Announce [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The > IESG > Sent: 03 October 2014 16:37 > To: IETF-Announce > Cc: bess WG > Subject: WG Review: BGP Enabled Services (bess) > > A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG > has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was > submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send > your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2014-10-13. > > BGP Enabled Services (bess) > ------------------------------------------------ > Current Status: Proposed WG > > Assigned Area Director: > Adrian Farrel > > Mailing list > Address: bess@ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bess/ > > Charter: > > BGP is established as a protocol for provisioning and operating Layer-3 > (routed) Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs). It is also used in certain > Layer-2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs). > > The BGP Enabled Services (BESS) working group is responsible for > defining, specifying, and extending network services based on BGP. In > particular, the working group will work on the following services: > > - BGP/MPLS IP VPN solutions (based on RFC4364 and RFC4659) for > supporting provider-provisioned L3VPNs including methods for enabling > multicast over BGP/MPLS VPNs. > > - BGP-enabled L2VPNs (as described in RFC 4664) that operate over IP or > MPLS packet switched network tunnels. All types of L2VPN are in scope > provided they utilize BGP for discovery, signaling, or for some other > purposes related to the VPN. But L2VPN solutions that operate over > pseudowires or use LDP and that do not utilize BGP will be addressed > by the PALS working group. Any contention in placement of the work > between these working groups will be resolved by the chairs. > > - BGP-enabled VPN solutions for use in the data center networking. > This work includes consideration of VPN scaling issues and > mechanisms applicable to such environments. > > - Extensions to BGP-enabled VPN solutions for the construction of > virtual topologies in support of services such as Service Function > Chaining. > > The working group may also suggest new services to be supported by BGP > and these may be added to the working group charter subject to > rechartering. > > The working group may work on: > > - Mechanisms to support BGP-enabled services in the presence of multi- > homing of Customer Edge (CE) devices to multiple Provider Edge (PE) > devices to provide load-balancing and resilience. > > - Auto-discovery of sites that participate in the BGP-enabled service. > > - Data models for modeling, managing, and operating BGP-based services > using SMI or YANG. > > - OAM or resiliency mechanisms operating over BGP-enabled services. But > native data plane OAM mechanisms may be worked on only in conjunction > with the working groups responsible for the relevant data planes. > > - Extensions to BGP and extensions to YANG models for BGP. All such > work must be reviewed by the IDR WG, but the decision to request > publication of such work remains with the BESS WG. > > The working group will also coordinate with other working groups where > appropriate. For example, with the MPLS working group for issues > related to the MPLS architecture, and the NVO3 working group for > coordination of protocols to support data center VPNs. > > The BESS working group will not define new data plane or forwarding > plane encapsulations. > > Milestones: From nobody Mon Oct 6 03:35:12 2014 Return-Path: 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 A7F051A1B91 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:35:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 L0GqpOt7PYOV for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A67DB1A1B8E for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s96AZ2pq012412 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:35:02 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s96AZ1ql012401 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:35:01 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: New RFC Editor Style Guide Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 11:34:54 +0100 Message-ID: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac/hUSnkJBK8DVnARiOtFbEAbzF+rA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-20998.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.275-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--1.275-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: ZMnlR4mUbe8lHrWFxb39OHYiw8L1nrYY/AZW18vjv1q638ZUY6gSdyyT z6anYi6mPEnq0NNddp2vex1XW4FuXEb7j8pmihQlVU3yVpaj3Qx/9Mg6o+wMiwKkHs5r/iqk0K/ W5f+6CgmaKpf1gIl45PumyOC/eNMc+6iGC4NhEbTmAId+2bAQwn0tCKdnhB58vqq8s2MNhPB/KM EkOe61SFBIVsvVu9ABJ0RPnyOnrZJUlKyXc1yihK079IswwtZCu2iSfBKWQF/6N8iwrWyz4ki7B 3lXJfOJ3OLpc352+L04gfXe08jxIOkwvmHUF+oYJ2xOqoCsEbpN/vQcxQpFczQFvN82A8P79TpQ iD8Sn4s54DEQIK3XhMn5FmnhuafQ Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/82KpmZERpLJWB_ynoUqeveTCoTA X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:35:10 -0000 Hi, All of you who are editing or authoring Internet-Drafts need to pay attention to the latest revision of the RFC Editor's style guide. This document sets out the layout for RFCs and the editorial style points that the RFC Editor will follow. As before, Internet-Drafts are expected to follow these guidelines so that the changes between the approved final revision of an Internet-Draft and the published RFC are as small as possible. This helps both to reduce the cost to the IETF of the RFC Editor function and (more important) reduces the risk of technical errors being introduced during late-stage edits. it is also a little easier for reviewers to read drafts if the material is always presented in a consistent way. Look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.txt and http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html Thanks, Adrian From nobody Mon Oct 6 03:46:41 2014 Return-Path: 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 F1F151A1B99 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 A7HbvRMkTSRY for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C7581A1B98 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 03:46:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1577; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412592398; x=1413801998; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JE7i6TpcWn2iWKbudYGoxqHVlqoD2Lsc5FxnKXvKVHc=; b=WwxqV8wLy2aYlevGetADQ/g/XqLqD+Rsn5rgpwi18RvmAEsXYctAhl5d VAl23hO3t1D0XYkKiqF6UfSnn5IDfpeHTN14ftJ0hKcBhnPI1wdwhwUFz Nqyd9J14+X7LVlYr/1ZE7Zi9IJjFqOQtPpDMA/NRcDGwgO0p3N1yo6u2B E=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,663,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="197279088" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Oct 2014 10:46:36 +0000 Received: from [64.103.108.91] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan301-64-103-108-91.cisco.com [64.103.108.91]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s96AkaHh019859; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:46:36 GMT Message-ID: <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:46:36 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/PZNtlIOUBVMIoyNVTNq-6JmH1jE X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:46:40 -0000 On 06/10/2014 11:34, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > All of you who are editing or authoring Internet-Drafts need to pay attention to > the latest revision of the RFC Editor's style guide. This document sets out the > layout for RFCs and the editorial style points that the RFC Editor will follow. > > As before, Internet-Drafts are expected to follow these guidelines so that the > changes between the approved final revision of an Internet-Draft and the > published RFC are as small as possible. This helps both to reduce the cost to > the IETF of the RFC Editor function and (more important) reduces the risk of > technical errors being introduced during late-stage edits. it is also a little > easier for reviewers to read drafts if the material is always presented in a > consistent way. > > Look at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7322.txt and > http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > Two things that would be really useful to me would be: 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared to what I have done for the past lots of years. 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do it for me. In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down how much of this do I care about? - Stewart From nobody Mon Oct 6 04:46:52 2014 Return-Path: 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 8AB9B1A1BFC for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:46:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Hov8xr6UOWrJ for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 362CC1A1BEC for ; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 04:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b13so6392885wgh.24 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:46:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bpsWUOmqzCxyH3XRflNCRWKSbo4zbZj3BWKAGQcg9IE=; b=rqs0uT027BJJsfVYHe7c1yxYLene/fGOeHh0N8ag1vBwudaeRXkVdLuGSyvY4521Qm +Vk/QmLZXKbNeCxQM5Kc/T99wrrsLW++vE6qc5hTelLnuG9BXzfcVtEgQREZz7Up2KyI 6T7kE1V+uPs8Ptvwf8KVk4+KBK1/EXdr7fZP95oEJDAe+q+giYh4dQ0ednUAwM7mYWbs v40P4kSzkL7/RqUgJvQP0IiefiOTBvNwMqVEir+X7iKxtPKLvCal0bSPDwnpIk1iD7sJ 99cXDwAgu9oko08Z5krykiPQYLn8r5JwHLNQ5OYFbWb00RHovzrUTElsT0ar7QKVVRMJ MyxA== X-Received: by 10.180.86.167 with SMTP id q7mr19155243wiz.21.1412596008474; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:46:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ARennes-652-1-271-16.w2-12.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2.12.162.16]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id be1sm11078569wib.4.2014.10.06.04.46.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Thomas Morin Message-ID: <54328126.6020200@orange.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 13:46:46 +0200 From: Thomas Morin Organization: Orange User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/0bU35ov2YQ1HbIIpQco1WFcfAc4 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:46:51 -0000 I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and result in much duplicated effort. -Thomas Stewart Bryant: > Two things that would be really useful to me would be: > > 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared > to what I have done for the past lots of years. > > 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do > it for me. > > In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the > output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down > how much of this do I care about? > > - Stewart From nobody Mon Oct 6 15:19:44 2014 Return-Path: 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 484851A8AB6; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:19:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 zRXaCB5fpe6S; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yk0-x236.google.com (mail-yk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42A4C1A8913; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yk0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 131so2347320ykp.41 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1fPiCtUO5Bu1eDzi8oncCocfnYFwXKjBjZT9JwNBsg4=; b=EKIEMRO2azqh11/TpJWPpvXOG5A4WuqaYpU0gbowzuWeFQgeP5zyMBXLm4gqFz0nQZ +RjMxzurQWnjHS0lnpcZN82lg24wPK2JNIcyO3SJMpedM4ZpCPDi7lJwipXUTbm44iMT NZVYSzArFnDr5elTVWsOTZZO+ZgT/0N4iDgQI74p3uIQ3qrH7IBRz+HDzUJFQeQTEt2o DtHFkY5WGkDjhnUPcFoZBHfaH+pJw8boNOhzCcvZf+H8KBX+/OBVURqeyjPyEST73mXb UIUSuP0u1iK47OI4/YjL2eWCXS61/zMw6iHMMMKP+JaJ5QrbZpZ78BB7byozWm/9jCo1 aKCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.87.227 with SMTP id y63mr28746561yhe.25.1412633968630; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.113.134 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Oct 2014 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 18:19:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Creation of rtg-yang-coord mailing list From: Alia Atlas To: "i2rs@ietf.org" , "netmod@ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" , "isis-wg@ietf.org" , OSPF List , "idr@ietf. org" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3010eabde5e0fb0504c879ae Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/CaEseEZehnfunrbR2U_eki78GiA Cc: Benoit Claise , Adrian Farrel X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 22:19:31 -0000 --20cf3010eabde5e0fb0504c879ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The rtg-yang-coord mailing list will provide a forum for coordination of the development of YANG models being worked on for Routing, in order to provide a consistent view to the NMS. The intended participants are people active in Routing working groups and interested in the associated YANG models, and YANG experts assisting with Routing YANG models. While this list will help with the synchronization, WGs with responsibility for core routing protocols are expected to also be responsible for the development of YANG models for those protocols. To subscribe, visit: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord Regards, Alia --20cf3010eabde5e0fb0504c879ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The rtg-yang-coord mailing list will provide a f= orum for coordination of the development=C2=A0=C2=A0of YANG models being wo= rked on for Routing, in order to provide a=C2=A0consistent view to the NMS.= =C2=A0 The intended participants are people active in Routing working group= s and interested in the=C2=A0associated YANG models, and YANG experts assis= ting with Routing YANG=C2=A0models. While this list=C2=A0will help with the= synchronization, WGs with responsibility for core=C2=A0routing protocols a= re expected=C2=A0=C2=A0to also be responsible for the development of YANG m= odels for those=C2=A0=C2=A0protocols.=C2=A0

To subscribe, visi= t:

= https://ww= w.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord

Regar= ds,

Alia

--20cf3010eabde5e0fb0504c879ae-- From nobody Tue Oct 7 02:07:57 2014 Return-Path: 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 51DC71A9155 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 02:07:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 HoWB8lfbOeDt for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 02:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEF2B1A913D for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 02:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DD0918013D1 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:07:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 11:07:49 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <54328126.6020200@orange.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/oyUzLCm7RAlUxLMWc0RmfC5Mno8 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 09:07:54 -0000 Folks, While a description of what is different would be welcome, I don't see that many things that have any heavy impact on what you need to do. What I see is - all IETF RFC need to be referenced as [RFCxxxx], not [1] or [pneumonic] - the statement on the number of authors on the first page is stronger and the decision is now with the stream - all documents will need a table of content (but I guess that xml2rfc will fix that) It would be good if as much as possible could be pushed into xml2rfc. Much is gained by running the nits toll before posting a draft, I kind of hope that it will align with the new style guide. /Loa On 2014-10-06 13:46, Thomas Morin wrote: > I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. > I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and > result in much duplicated effort. > > -Thomas > > Stewart Bryant: >> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: >> >> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared >> to what I have done for the past lots of years. >> >> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do >> it for me. >> >> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the >> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down >> how much of this do I care about? >> >> - Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Tue Oct 7 03:17:48 2014 Return-Path: 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 A69591A1BA9 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vYJOy-Dh-1bf for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5B2A1A923C for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s97AHgeB022377; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:42 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s97AHesi022343 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:41 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Thomas Morin'" , References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> In-Reply-To: <54328126.6020200@orange.com> Subject: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:31 +0100 Message-ID: <10d601cfe217$e83709c0$b8a51d40$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQInor5Q9z/nu8GHCxYqPTNC5NcY4wKphYb+AcEwsLqbUZP3AA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21000.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.799-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--13.799-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: cgbqQT5W8heBnJ5ETtWXfXYiw8L1nrYYXfZY2uc9ofbadW4iYSMjUeO7 Q9MS0NLnXK81MtkEN/v+w331TsHWuyWvhQBtQUwTiguiJuCNURf27Syjew41+J722hDqHosTTo+ d5kYVw/EOdfGoKEQQ2MaWogZSwrfNCI0sHVMvHhOdVNZaI2n6/0GV2YNiPCWm51ONI4UL++qjxY yRBa/qJX3mXSdV7KK4OubYLCVnBVEgBwKKRHe+r5JzYKicYJMVYwsarbFmH0LtRBPTGWAtIKNWi BdCyJPKK88lhrDQOCQ= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/h0lmAcj4bpLghVbop-IGZ4B3dX8 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:17:46 -0000 I agree, but what can you do? Email to the RFC Editor to ask for help identifying what has changed. Email to the xml2rfc team to ask them what the status is. A > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Morin > Sent: 06 October 2014 12:47 > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide > > I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. > I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and > result in much duplicated effort. > > -Thomas > > Stewart Bryant: > > Two things that would be really useful to me would be: > > > > 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared > > to what I have done for the past lots of years. > > > > 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do > > it for me. > > > > In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the > > output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down > > how much of this do I care about? > > > > - Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From nobody Tue Oct 7 06:05:26 2014 Return-Path: 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 5BB081A1F20 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.772 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 JRQhDtwnq0Ox for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E73A1A1BF4 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:04:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6763; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1412687097; x=1413896697; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=UUEvF2KAntIFWYRyLOC5vqUktxp9V83h5/GixB31m8I=; b=YNcu2oo0VXkHdiPtYplnwbkM1mb/zjZtgOY59kDUnn4xp6aYtFMJ9CA7 1QqXOa43knsGLiwj6kdedFVTGRqMAEbYscv88rc2k+C1jYdSbOFhIMxzw J85e5F3KIfi0O9z+Y9j/BFasurD1HHzAYyX1QBR8yw/iOfmMQqwSE0azj U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,670,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="198634416" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2014 13:04:54 +0000 Received: from [64.103.108.142] (dhcp-bdlk10-data-vlan301-64-103-108-142.cisco.com [64.103.108.142]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s97D4sNH028638; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:04:54 GMT Message-ID: <5433E4F6.9050609@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:04:54 +0100 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RFC Editor Subject: Fwd: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <10d601cfe217$e83709c0$b8a51d40$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <10d601cfe217$e83709c0$b8a51d40$@olddog.co.uk> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <10d601cfe217$e83709c0$b8a51d40$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090801030305070803080400" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/D05S_qK9SidhzLFVzr0p1GYw8mw Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:05:24 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090801030305070803080400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Please can you help us understand what specific actions we need to take as a result of the new style guide. Specifically, if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down how much of this new style guide do we need to care about? Thanks Stewart -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:31 +0100 From: Adrian Farrel Reply-To: To: 'Thomas Morin' , I agree, but what can you do? Email to the RFC Editor to ask for help identifying what has changed. Email to the xml2rfc team to ask them what the status is. A > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Thomas Morin > Sent: 06 October 2014 12:47 > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide > > I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. > I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and > result in much duplicated effort. > > -Thomas > > Stewart Bryant: > > Two things that would be really useful to me would be: > > > > 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared > > to what I have done for the past lots of years. > > > > 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do > > it for me. > > > > In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the > > output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down > > how much of this do I care about? > > > > - Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion --------------090801030305070803080400 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi

Please can you help us understand what specific actions we need to take as a result of the new style guide. Specifically, if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down how much of this new style guide do we need to care about?

Thanks

Stewart

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:31 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Thomas Morin' <thomas.morin@orange.com>, <routing-discussion@ietf.org> 


I agree, but what can you do?

Email to the RFC Editor to ask for help identifying what has changed.
Email to the xml2rfc team to ask them what the status is.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
> Of Thomas Morin
> Sent: 06 October 2014 12:47
> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide
> 
> I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful.
> I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and
> result in much duplicated effort.
> 
> -Thomas
> 
> Stewart Bryant:
> > Two things that would be really useful to me would be:
> >
> > 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared
> > to what I have done for the past lots of years.
> >
> > 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do
> > it for me.
> >
> > In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the
> > output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down
> > how much of this do I care about?
> >
> > - Stewart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> routing-discussion@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion


--------------090801030305070803080400-- From nobody Tue Oct 7 06:08:19 2014 Return-Path: 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 283F51A2130 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:08:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 aZHD3K8oQ9rw for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAEB61A212D for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.120] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AF8F18013D1 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 15:08:07 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5433E5B8.6050209@pi.nu> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 15:08:08 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/b1V1um9ZF0tiQkoVEsh6c7TGu0A X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 13:08:13 -0000 Folks, I've spotted one more change that you have to edit into the xml yourself (depending a bit on the template you use. If you start from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/draft-davies-template-bare.xml it is not really updated. I've asked Elwyn to do a couple of minor updates to align with RFC 7322. The section the include the RFC 2119 words and reference RFC 2119, are now normative Section 2. /Loa On 2014-10-07 11:07, Loa Andersson wrote: > Folks, > > While a description of what is different would be welcome, I don't see > that many things that have any heavy impact on what you need to do. > What I see is > > - all IETF RFC need to be referenced as [RFCxxxx], not [1] or > [pneumonic] > - the statement on the number of authors on the first page is > stronger and the decision is now with the stream > - all documents will need a table of content (but I guess that xml2rfc > will fix that) > > It would be good if as much as possible could be pushed into xml2rfc. > > Much is gained by running the nits toll before posting a draft, I kind > of hope that it will align with the new style guide. > > /Loa > > On 2014-10-06 13:46, Thomas Morin wrote: >> I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. >> I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and >> result in much duplicated effort. >> >> -Thomas >> >> Stewart Bryant: >>> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: >>> >>> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared >>> to what I have done for the past lots of years. >>> >>> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do >>> it for me. >>> >>> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the >>> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down >>> how much of this do I care about? >>> >>> - Stewart >> >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Tue Oct 7 07:17:48 2014 Return-Path: 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 0BC8B1ACDA2 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 q2gUYpt-nlmM for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83ED21ACDB1 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id s97EHboM019576; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 10:17:37 -0400 Message-ID: <5433F605.3090609@concordia.ca> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:17:41 -0400 From: William Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Montreal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: routing-discussion@ietf.org, Loa Andersson Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> <5433E5B8.6050209@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <5433E5B8.6050209@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2014-10-07 10:17:38 EDT Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/k3HSlW8HzF4Q7s0ahAJ0XElJ8u0 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 14:17:45 -0000 Loa, No, the RFC 2119 text is not "normative Section 2". Here's the RFC 7322 text: This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the Introduction section. So, it can be in Section 1 or in a subsequent section. Bill On 07/10/2014 9:08 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Folks, > > I've spotted one more change that you have to edit into the xml yourself > (depending a bit on the template you use. If you start from > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/draft-davies-template-bare.xml > it is not really updated. I've asked Elwyn to do a couple of minor > updates to align with RFC 7322. > > The section the include the RFC 2119 words and reference RFC 2119, > are now normative Section 2. > > /Loa > > On 2014-10-07 11:07, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Folks, >> >> While a description of what is different would be welcome, I don't see >> that many things that have any heavy impact on what you need to do. >> What I see is >> >> - all IETF RFC need to be referenced as [RFCxxxx], not [1] or >> [pneumonic] >> - the statement on the number of authors on the first page is >> stronger and the decision is now with the stream >> - all documents will need a table of content (but I guess that xml2rfc >> will fix that) >> >> It would be good if as much as possible could be pushed into xml2rfc. >> >> Much is gained by running the nits toll before posting a draft, I kind >> of hope that it will align with the new style guide. >> >> /Loa >> >> On 2014-10-06 13:46, Thomas Morin wrote: >>> I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. >>> I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and >>> result in much duplicated effort. >>> >>> -Thomas >>> >>> Stewart Bryant: >>>> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: >>>> >>>> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared >>>> to what I have done for the past lots of years. >>>> >>>> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do >>>> it for me. >>>> >>>> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the >>>> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down >>>> how much of this do I care about? >>>> >>>> - Stewart >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> routing-discussion mailing list >>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> > -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 From nobody Wed Oct 8 02:44:10 2014 Return-Path: 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 0FD8E1A0022 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 02:44:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786] 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 gH7xrd9VtZ7Q for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 02:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 623DF1A0121 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 02:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 640601801256; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 11:44:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <54350766.6060505@pi.nu> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 11:44:06 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Atwood , routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> <5433E5B8.6050209@pi.nu> <5433F605.3090609@concordia.ca> In-Reply-To: <5433F605.3090609@concordia.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/ONvS8weS543gAE7xRBqPuCFv2TY X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 09:44:09 -0000 Bill, Yes you are right, my bad. /Loa On 2014-10-07 16:17, William Atwood wrote: > Loa, > > No, the RFC 2119 text is not "normative Section 2". Here's the RFC 7322 > text: > > This section must appear as part of the body of the memo (as defined > by this document). It must appear as part of, or subsequent to, the > Introduction section. > > So, it can be in Section 1 or in a subsequent section. > > Bill > > On 07/10/2014 9:08 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I've spotted one more change that you have to edit into the xml yourself >> (depending a bit on the template you use. If you start from >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/draft-davies-template-bare.xml >> it is not really updated. I've asked Elwyn to do a couple of minor >> updates to align with RFC 7322. >> >> The section the include the RFC 2119 words and reference RFC 2119, >> are now normative Section 2. >> >> /Loa >> >> On 2014-10-07 11:07, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> While a description of what is different would be welcome, I don't see >>> that many things that have any heavy impact on what you need to do. >>> What I see is >>> >>> - all IETF RFC need to be referenced as [RFCxxxx], not [1] or >>> [pneumonic] >>> - the statement on the number of authors on the first page is >>> stronger and the decision is now with the stream >>> - all documents will need a table of content (but I guess that xml2rfc >>> will fix that) >>> >>> It would be good if as much as possible could be pushed into xml2rfc. >>> >>> Much is gained by running the nits toll before posting a draft, I kind >>> of hope that it will align with the new style guide. >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> On 2014-10-06 13:46, Thomas Morin wrote: >>>> I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. >>>> I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and >>>> result in much duplicated effort. >>>> >>>> -Thomas >>>> >>>> Stewart Bryant: >>>>> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: >>>>> >>>>> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared >>>>> to what I have done for the past lots of years. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do >>>>> it for me. >>>>> >>>>> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the >>>>> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down >>>>> how much of this do I care about? >>>>> >>>>> - Stewart >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> routing-discussion mailing list >>>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >>> >> > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From nobody Fri Oct 10 09:59:55 2014 Return-Path: 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 D55C61A3BA2 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:59:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] 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 wvXuZbI2jXlj for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:59:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0771.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::771]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB6A1A6EF8 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 09:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc6 (86.167.152.56) by AMSPR07MB375.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.21.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1049.19; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:59:27 +0000 Message-ID: <013a01cfe4ab$446a6e40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Loa Andersson , References: <0e2b01cfe151$2b896960$829c3c20$@olddog.co.uk> <5432730C.6010303@cisco.com> <54328126.6020200@orange.com> <5433AD65.4080800@pi.nu> Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 17:27:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [86.167.152.56] X-ClientProxiedBy: AM3PR03CA023.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.191.151) To AMSPR07MB375.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.21.15) X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AMSPR07MB375; X-Forefront-PRVS: 03607C04F0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(199003)(189002)(13464003)(51704005)(252514010)(377454003)(57704003)(377424004)(81816999)(81686999)(76176999)(88136002)(92566001)(92726001)(77156001)(89996001)(20776003)(64706001)(62236002)(50986999)(50466002)(101416001)(76482002)(44716002)(66066001)(47776003)(116806002)(85852003)(46102003)(31966008)(80022003)(62966002)(120916001)(77096002)(106356001)(21056001)(23756003)(107886001)(107046002)(4396001)(50226001)(95666004)(61296003)(44736004)(84392001)(104166001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(93916002)(86362001)(85306004)(102836001)(14496001)(87976001)(105586002)(93886004)(40100002)(42186005)(87286001)(33646002)(99396003)(97736003)(122386002)(74416001)(7726001)(21314002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR07MB375; H:pc6; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/fNlzMgSaRwty18Ychhc0kTaf6qM X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:59:54 -0000 ---- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:07 AM > > While a description of what is different would be welcome, I don't see > that many things that have any heavy impact on what you need to do. > What I see is > > - all IETF RFC need to be referenced as [RFCxxxx], not [1] or > [pneumonic] > - the statement on the number of authors on the first page is > stronger and the decision is now with the stream > - all documents will need a table of content (but I guess that xml2rfc > will fix that) Looking some more, and using 'RFC Document Style Dec 2007' as a base (more recent than any of my copies of rfc2223bis but you may have used something more recent still), what I think I see is - a set of documents has become a cluster as per the RFC-Editor website - the reference to permissible characters has been removed - details of page size have been removed, along with details of page headers and footers - punctuation should be within quotes when quoting general text (was outside) - angle brackets strongly recommended around URIs - Section titles that are in sentence form will follow typical sentence capitalization (was title case) - abbreviations should be expanded upon first use (was must) - cross references within the body of the text must use section numbers (was should) - notes on the use of 'emphasis', 'i.e.', 'e.g.' all removed - document structure brought in line with current practice - appendices should be labelled (was numbered or labelled) - front matter now references RFC5741 for layout - the stream determines who is author or editor (not just how many thereof) - Abstract not limited to 20 lines - IANA considerations should used TBD1, TBD2 etc not TBA or XXX - i18n section should be included when appropriate - see BCP18 - references will generally appear in alphameric order of tag - URIs acceptable (was discouraged) - reference format defined for errata and other SDO - authors must have an e-mail address (was just one of several options) - appendices on Additional Data about the Contents of RFC Elements Postscript Format Rules End-of-Line and End-of-Page removed Tom Petch > It would be good if as much as possible could be pushed into xml2rfc. > > Much is gained by running the nits toll before posting a draft, I kind > of hope that it will align with the new style guide. > > /Loa > > On 2014-10-06 13:46, Thomas Morin wrote: > > I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. > > I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and > > result in much duplicated effort. > > > > -Thomas > > > > Stewart Bryant: > >> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: > >> > >> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared > >> to what I have done for the past lots of years. > >> > >> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do > >> it for me. > >> > >> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the > >> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down > >> how much of this do I care about? > >> > >> - Stewart > > > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 > From nobody Sat Oct 11 09:58:43 2014 Return-Path: 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 205B81A6FC8 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SN7D1FhVhpq4 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D48A1A6FC6 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 09:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9BGwTlO016810; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:58:29 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9BGwSMR016786 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:58:29 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: RE: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: YANG Advice and Editing Session at this coming IETF Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:58:25 +0100 Message-ID: <031801cfe574$93679580$ba36c080$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0319_01CFE57C.F52E6E80" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac/ldD8yvSAc8xRxSXK2eeYA4Na4OA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21016.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--3.870-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--3.870-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: mGV7xPP3pcVbJCKOm3VRCSEIesPcVkqFPOUcZN8OnnE7DjdF+VTwBMsN f0Yic8Yy6WQNmBHvFwGVUcz8XpiS9FQfG0AaArV8ExpsOtmUB6mnu55oSQOpMzNAuA6abqMj4rH WEFH9w7lL+u505pvRZ+9VsdrlGzy3QZXZg2I8JaYYS0SI/JTNr3BAiMbcV6F8C6BjJQ7ZiUx2Ub qcatE72uETiJzZYgN7j2FGM19l45dReWnUUdhI9TnKpbGL4ChVCf2h9A2gFAUguuCAVXi57qHss Sy9SqttSTlIxL09KvtK2kj7j4ouALen1kxWPkQZ2hV8jMmGLDRf5LIdea3pWonFJ5/U720jMZ6e JFkWPQQ14BzOKUDT3fAjkTMkRNNU/bFfU5WtaotXG3yI9k2vbOTUuEDszCu7ewo8j91GeTG6RgE NsA/90MsesOAiftrl9iItFUn3XkM7r2Gtb9iBYU8dFP+NPq6+2ugQZCK503LnS2T1VubAzXnccn /22kNHm9qITc9BfqTU/k3CIVFAgWSQJNOBAM9lJ/qeednLCNWP7GAQSe5/nfbBROhn2OIGPC7j/ mzpDFqfL6D8TtOZrM87s4OnYGuCMrX+p1uNztA93acSBBsAmvBYRo06eVj33tjO3hO1fp2sL00K bDwQC0cM4veO5UGxY4guKfvwCBYzH3zWWApNw/ufvd3T2+v3GRCKVx5QswnzbeV2VN8Li3ZBE86 uj+HtFIXwv4qc0ZOlhD9Iy+IVwyIEB/X0tggGlThwL2cA6F1R18QpzXStTjhEMZsHJG9bERIFEm VIRRZTovWuZWqWkS+PrAd8gbHJM9g+YfdqJKGbKItl61J/yZUdXE/WGn0FfeZdJ1XsorhRIJJOd tCgUirJhLSjJRVmEGRt4DqH9Bs/Q7JRx5HIB9LxPGtmrwC3n+cGNzTSqDEk0IJ66dRhAft/aRZs uAw7qdCImDFSubH6bVr9nI1eIx30AHw8tEoiIIOkpIuDri+mZGuggTpk6XAp9Q8LqnP8tSHe/YN jUYeY6hBZIu9bFgHU7/BHt+NChICteg4k4loEHDO0TDz/URTWGZReG2tMVlxr1FJij9s= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/Un5epzU5o4rW8yaMKNHocpVGhFM Cc: 'Benoit Claise' X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 16:58:39 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01CFE57C.F52E6E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This email to rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org may be a little premature because the listed hasn't existed long enough for everyone to sign up. So, actions: 1. Sign up to the list if you have an interest in YANG models for or related to routing protocols 2. Note well Benoit's email below. Adrian From: Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: 11 October 2014 16:39 To: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: YANG Advice and Editing Session at this coming IETF FYI. Regards, Benoit -------- Original Message -------- Subject: YANG Advice and Editing Session at this coming IETF Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:37:48 +0200 From: Benoit Claise To: NETMOD Working Group Dear all, Like at the IETF 90 , we will be organizing a "YANG Advice and Editing Session" at this coming IETF meeting. This is your chance to get feedback from the YANG doctors in order to improve your YANG models. Date and time: Sunday, Nov9, 14:00-17:00 Description: At the IETF and in the industry in general, we observe a growing interest for configuration management with YANG modules. On Sunday afternoon, the YANG doctors will be available to provide advice on your YANG models. This session is not a tutorial on how to design YANG models and use NETCONF, but a place to get feedback on your data modeling questions, language usage questions, tools to use, etc... The afternoon will be dedicated to different time slots based on the number of requests and available YANG doctors. Advanced participation notice to bclaise@cisco.com and netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org is welcomed. The details (basically this invite) will be posted soon under http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/tutorials.html Tom Nadeau, NETMOD co-chair, might try to organize an extra ad-hoc session towards the end of the IETF week. Contact us (bclaise@cisco.com and netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org) if interested. Regards, Benoit ------=_NextPart_000_0319_01CFE57C.F52E6E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This email to = rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org may be a little premature because the listed = hasn't existed long enough for everyone to sign = up.

 

So, = actions:

 

1. Sign up to the list if you = have an interest in YANG models for or related to routing = protocols

 

2. Note well Benoit's email = below.

 

Adrian

 

From: = Rtg-yang-coord [mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of = Benoit Claise
Sent: 11 October 2014 16:39
To: = Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
Subject: [Rtg-yang-coord] Fwd: YANG = Advice and Editing Session at this coming = IETF

 

FYI.

Regards, = Benoit



-------- = Original Message --------

Subject: =

YANG Advice and Editing Session at this coming = IETF

Date: =

Sat, 11 Oct 2014 17:37:48 = +0200

From: =

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>

To: =

NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>



Dear = all,

Like at the IETF = 90, we will be organizing a "YANG Advice and Editing = Session" at this coming IETF meeting.

This is your chance = to get feedback from the YANG doctors in order to improve your YANG = models.

Date and time: Sunday, Nov9, = 14:00-17:00

Description: At the IETF and = in the industry in general, we observe a growing interest for = configuration management with YANG modules. On Sunday afternoon, the = YANG doctors will be available to provide advice on your YANG models. = This session is not a tutorial on how to design YANG models and use = NETCONF, but a place to get feedback on your data modeling questions, = language usage questions, tools to use, etc...
The afternoon will be = dedicated to different time slots based on the number of requests and = available YANG doctors.

Advanced = participation notice to bclaise@cisco.com and netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org= is welcomed.

The details (basically this invite) will be = posted soon under http://www.ietf.or= g/meeting/91/tutorials.html

Tom Nadeau, NETMOD co-chair, = might try to organize an extra ad-hoc session towards the end of the = IETF week. Contact us (bclaise@cisco.com and netmod-chairs@tools.ietf.org= ) if interested.

Regards, = Benoit

 

------=_NextPart_000_0319_01CFE57C.F52E6E80-- From nobody Mon Oct 13 07:27:31 2014 Return-Path: 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 4CEB01ACCD9 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:05:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 5JgsgobfXwnY for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx11.netapp.com (mx11.netapp.com [216.240.18.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 153241ACCE2 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,711,1406617200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="160567810" Received: from hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.39]) by mx11-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2014 07:05:10 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.40) by hioexcmbx06-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:05:08 -0700 Received: from HIOEXCMBX07-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([::1]) by hioexcmbx07-prd.hq.netapp.com ([fe80::9047:8c6c:1d6e:4581%21]) with mapi id 15.00.0995.031; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:05:08 -0700 From: "Eggert, Lars" To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Subject: Fwd: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2014 presentation s at IETF-91 Thread-Topic: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2014 presentation s at IETF-91 Thread-Index: AQHP5u6xUKzaR/ue/EqhLUxUYTTM5A== Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:05:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <4705B28C-7F64-4D05-8D3A-791B9A2D7B24@netapp.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) x-originating-ip: [10.122.56.79] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_63E6C7C7-A1E2-40FB-8855-82EB907D9CEB"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/SNtDhXe3JuK3dZdD8rgkjYq59oU X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 07:27:27 -0700 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 14:05:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_63E6C7C7-A1E2-40FB-8855-82EB907D9CEB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sharon's talk is likely of interest to BGP folks Begin forwarded message: > From: "Eggert, Lars" > Subject: [IRTF-Announce] Applied Networking Research Prize 2014 = presentation s at IETF-91 > Date: October 13, 2014 at 16:00:55 GMT+2 > To: "irtf-announce@irtf.org" > Cc: "irtf-discuss@irtf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org = Mailing List" > Reply-To: "anrp@irtf.org" >=20 > ********************************************************************** > The call for ANRP nominations for the 2015 awards cycle is now > open! Read more about the ANRP at http://irtf.org/anrp. >=20 > DEADLINE IS OCTOBER 31, 2014 > ********************************************************************** >=20 > Hi, >=20 > we are extremely pleased to report that for the 2014 award period > of the Applied Networking Research Prize (ANRP), 46 eligible > nominations were received. Each submission was reviewed by four > members of the selection committee according to a diverse set of > criteria, including scientific excellence and substance, timeliness, > relevance, and potential impact on the Internet. >=20 > Based on this review, six submissions were awarded an Applied > Networking Research Prize for 2014. The final three prize winners > for 2014 will present their work at IETF-91 in Honolulu, HI, USA. > The ANRP awards for IETF-91 go to: >=20 > *** Sharon Goldberg *** for discussing threats when BGP RPKI > authorities are faulty, misconfigured, compromised, or compelled > to misbehave: >=20 > Danny Cooper, Ethan Heilman, Kyle Brogle, Leonid Reyzin and > Sharon Goldberg. On the Risk of Misbehaving RPKI Authorities. > Proc. ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets-XII), > College Park, MD, USA, November 2013. >=20 > *** Tobias Flach *** for the design of novel loss recovery mechanisms > for TCP that minimize timeout-driven recovery: >=20 > Tobias Flach, Nandita Dukkipati, Andreas Terzis, Barath > Raghavan, Neal Cardwell, Yuchung Cheng, Ankur Jain, Shuai Hao, > Ethan Katz-Bassett, Ramesh Govindan. Reducing Web Latency: the > Virtue of Gentle Aggression. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, Hong Kong, China, > August 2013. >=20 > *** Misbah Uddin *** for developing matching and ranking for > network search queries to make operational data available in > real-time to management applications: >=20 > Misbah Uddin, Rolf Stadler and Alexander Clemm. Scalable > Matching and Ranking for Network Search. Proc. International > Conference on Network and Service Management (CNSM), Z=FCrich, > Switzerland, October 2013. >=20 > Sharon, Tobias and Misbah have been invited to present his findings in > the IRTF Open Meeting during IETF-91 in Honolulu, HI, USA. Join > them there! >=20 > Please subscribe to the IRTF-Announce mailing list in order to receive > future calls for ANRP nominations and join ISOC to stay informed of > other networking research initiatives: >=20 > http://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/irtf-announce > http://isoc.org/join >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Lars Eggert, IRTF Chair http://irtf.org/anrp > Mat Ford, Internet Society http://isoc.org/research >=20 > -- >=20 > 2014 ANRP Selection Committee >=20 > Mark Allman, ICIR > Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M > Lou Berger, LabN > Olivier Bonaventure, UCL Louvain > Ross Callon, Juniper > KC Claffy, CAIDA > Lars Eggert, NetApp > Stephen Farrell, Trinity College Dublin > Olivier Festor, INRIA > Mat Ford, ISOC > Lisandro Granville, UFRGS > Volker Hilt, Bell Labs > Suresh Krishnan, Ericsson > Dan Massey, Colorado State > Al Morton, AT&T Laboratories > J=F6rg Ott, Aalto University > Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow > Stefano Previdi, Cisco > J=FCrgen Sch=F6nw=E4lder, Jacobs University Bremen > Joe Touch, USC/ISI > Rolf Winter, Hochschule Augsburg > Yang Richard Yang, Yale > Lixia Zhang, UCLA >=20 --Apple-Mail=_63E6C7C7-A1E2-40FB-8855-82EB907D9CEB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQCVAwUBVDvcFtZcnpRveo1xAQLAPQQAsxYYy0z/yuTyJjuwCvUmfh8uS2kUC5Qh X3rXJ0Mjq7ezYanPAXEQ/TUgyKkj7uiLdA3m4NFBoRWyhvRwEeFGIdPI9fs9Wo49 OMFe8Hl3QTNeYnRLCuFdCV281Lv8nbWS+7UBhgBulyPxofOMpyQw5JAyw4+ugEXI CIPGBGEgMJk= =6HdT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_63E6C7C7-A1E2-40FB-8855-82EB907D9CEB-- From nobody Thu Oct 16 10:29:43 2014 Return-Path: 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 BD48F1A0263 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 0dH_qooucqJN for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 383741A0406 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GHTVLt010067 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:29:31 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GHTV9C010049 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:29:31 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Formation of the BESS working group Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:29:19 +0100 Message-ID: <025f01cfe966$bc5ed020$351c7060$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac/pZhok7nMi97k1RISZN8eQcV/tpQ== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21032.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.630-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--6.630-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 439tFQybZ1rOf6FUr/HJkVfS8E9vfq82k4FdoXhNFg1B6C97myJg64r7 GzPHv3SHJHR60dTIPdr6/8A5t5NKXRgHZ8655DOPOX/V8P8ail3Yr6U3ZlQkdtmzcdRxL+xwKra uXd3MZDX4ZcfVYTi076OsXC1WcZQd5I3Ra1c/u7sQ007Tkc6ZgdGjV1kkcNg1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/yXe44qkBZ2pUokdoL0I_PkgIZSU X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:29:41 -0000 Hi, The IESG just approved the formation of the BESS working group with the charter you can see in the datatracker. The formal announcement text will follow (probably tomorrow). Once I see the announcement I will close the L3VPN WG. BESS will meet in the agenda slot marked "L3VPN" in the current draft IETF-91 agenda. Please move all of the in-charter discussions to the BESS list and keep on the good work. Thanks, Adrian From nobody Thu Oct 16 10:29:51 2014 Return-Path: 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 68F831A1A3E for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 1q2rr7uMfioV for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196021A1A42 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GHRjoX022682 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:27:45 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GHRiZr022676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:27:45 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Progression of the PALS working group Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:29:33 +0100 Message-ID: <026101cfe966$c04a6230$40df2690$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac/pZrk8YG52NqmGSVW3BBZZekYikw== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21032.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--2.604-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--2.604-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: wJ1hRUMNWdTALP4z28FkP1fS8E9vfq829pLnYtQ99xJwG72s9z/Zf7e2 5AmPxvRor8RjrZqN+Ict7DX2k5G3/wKqb6K4fx6O+8AO9OcJ/m9eu73mFK6GNP002DXYmoa1iZp B+yrHVcASIyD/o2Sxk/nyzPfc7xGWGAdnzrnkM485f9Xw/xqKXdivpTdmVCR22bNx1HEv7HAqtq 5d3cxkNZtXyp5XL4L/8InchyJBTyWQAjFYRi9EepEN/RR9CqgtH17unGl8qGp8UfLbVssuTwoOz h5UruqOE3WGPXvdKC5ogir6wvZ181DiT8qjg9gmr3LE7lHo4NKJkNr6rpsABVVB/ObyHMK5dgP9 zZeD/JE= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/wqHJJRf58VomTzpkNHbyoI23690 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:29:48 -0000 Hi, The IESG today approved the principle of creating PALS and is sending the charter for external review. The current version of the charter can be seen at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pals/ and your comments are welcome. The best place for those discussions would be routing-discussion@ietf.org. I am in the process of creating the pals@ietf.org mailing list. The draft agenda for IETF-91 shows two slots booked: one for L2VPN and one for PWE3. it is highly likely that PALS will be formally chartered on the 30th October IESG telechat. In this event, PALS will meet in the L2VPN slot and the PWE3 slot will be held in reserve in case there is overflow (highly unlikely on the current showing). Thanks, Adrian From nobody Thu Oct 16 11:19:34 2014 Return-Path: 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 EA6D51A1A32; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LC8OT-ROK8gV; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ACA11A0199; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:19:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GIJE7W021852; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:19:14 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GIJCk8021842 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:19:13 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'CCAMP'" , , Subject: Progress with forming TEAS working group Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:19:08 +0100 Message-ID: <028e01cfe96d$ae0b58c0$0a220a40$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac/pbaw1aHsTHPmgROqdF3p2VsF9QA== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21032.002 X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.904-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--4.904-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +zq3ScDhdVz243bLvnYxneLdprnA5EQRz5hzQnUnsHZA9Ad+70NukwaT alM8C773f5Vqqfad4pvUWPjkMGeZuEj+bWNtFbsn2Hdvv/MGE3V9LQinZ4QefL6qvLNjDYTwfyj BJDnutUhQSFbL1bvQASdET58jp62Slph5Erpfp880NeRFKdoAXdDgke9UroWa3BQLMX8eahc1zb 8qMsqVNO6pgZ0FbrwakU7Q86IOG58YSeH4gETaLLp6OACFzbL56Hq9RCTLxvsstHmcXeW1eBVSG W4LjW40FYnPSoXfG8ckhYHVA/r8kw== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/uzAnE9uEIVx1V1VQrVyujg_7zQM Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:19:21 -0000 All, We have been working on a first draft of a charter for TEAS to split out "Traffic Engineering" from the current CCAMP and MPLS working groups. This will also necessitate new charters for CCAMP and MPLS, and a tiny tweak to PCE. Our plan is to get something with some rough agreement from the chairs of the various working groups and then to put it out for discussion. I hope that we will be able to assign some time in Honolulu to discuss any contentious issues that arise. However, note that the current working groups will meet a normal in Hawaii. Adrian and Alia From nobody Thu Oct 16 14:54:35 2014 Return-Path: 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 BA3DA1A8AB8 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:54:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2BB5umJHeomc for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA4221A8AC5 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 14:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GLsRrT007617; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:54:27 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s9GLsQli007607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:54:26 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , References: <026101cfe966$c04a6230$40df2690$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <026101cfe966$c04a6230$40df2690$@olddog.co.uk> Subject: RE: Progression of the PALS working group Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 22:54:21 +0100 Message-ID: <033d01cfe98b$be4e4440$3aeaccc0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQH73uNn9JEs81CcHK31JyPS4z19GJvbWZMg Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21032.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.880-10.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--9.880-10.0-31-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: zGP2F0O7j/vahTn6VbgBfqm4PbloS2C3H181YDtIVapxV1qk8iqvqBEX WgyXQw/xTWLw2jvbfpw2HZCtTkRx1PUe3cF58v23CFaAixm5eU/G1X8gAmytlhHfiujuTbedAC3 2Dt28wLUTmTRJBVsPwLpYXWgTig8JEV60qkfIybn191NQzhGRr97vAfxD/E4SH/9vPj/FgoAQ2i WGCBc44RFbcWj6ErewHmGY/o4z88lNfs8n85Te8v7E6GNqs6ceseWplitmp0j6C0ePs7A07R/88 i/oAaospy0O1x/ZGsV43Nh9b7ODRgM9I7ieDiFVQFX27k48qCk= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/EuusbLpIFjrYE5DCoRhLwKWYr9E X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:54:31 -0000 Hi, The PALS mailing list is now up and running. Discussion of the PALS charter can be taken there. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: 16 October 2014 18:30 > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Progression of the PALS working group > > Hi, > > The IESG today approved the principle of creating PALS and is sending the > charter for external review. > > The current version of the charter can be seen at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-pals/ and your comments are > welcome. The best place for those discussions would be > routing-discussion@ietf.org. > > I am in the process of creating the pals@ietf.org mailing list. > > The draft agenda for IETF-91 shows two slots booked: one for L2VPN and one for > PWE3. it is highly likely that PALS will be formally chartered on the 30th > October IESG telechat. In this event, PALS will meet in the L2VPN slot and the > PWE3 slot will be held in reserve in case there is overflow (highly unlikely on > the current showing). > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From nobody Thu Oct 16 17:35:54 2014 Return-Path: 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 4A9E51A9045 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.912 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LKBnc5Gpr9rv for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6FB1A7013 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 6000) id E516E181C9B; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:44 -0700 From: RFC Editor To: Stewart Bryant Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide Message-ID: <20141017003544.GA21325@rfc-editor.org> References: <10d601cfe217$e83709c0$b8a51d40$@olddog.co.uk> <5433E4F6.9050609@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5433E4F6.9050609@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/dzR-aMkL8TpN3sFk_f6SZ_qo0rA Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , RFC Editor X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 00:35:53 -0000 Hi Stewart, For the most part, the RFC Editor will make the needed adjustments to conform with the new Style Guide: a number of them are still outside the current ability of xml2rfc. However, we recommend reviewing the updated Style Guide because it includes some recommendations (rather than requirements) that may have an impact on the authors' stylistic choices. Some highlights of formatting items from RFC 7322 that authors can implement now are: * placing Acknowledgements and Contributors sections after the References section (Section 4) * including a table of contents in all documents, no matter the length (Section 4.7) * using angle brackets around URLs (Section 3.3) * listing the "country short name" in the postal address (if listed) in the Authors' Addresses section (Section 4.12) provides a summary of the manual fixes the RFC Editor will make during the final stages of production (just before publication) because xml2rfc does not yet provide the proper functionality. It also contains a pointer to the Web Portion of the Style Guide (http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/part2.html) that highlights items that have not yet made it into the Style Guide but are helpful for authors. We are creating a list to highlight a number of common updates that authors may want to make while drafting their document in accordance with the new Style Guide. We will let you know when the page is available online. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:04:54PM +0100, Stewart Bryant wrote: > Hi > > Please can you help us understand what specific actions we need to > take as a result of the new style guide. Specifically, if I just > take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the output into xml2rfc and > make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down how much of this new > style guide do we need to care about? > > Thanks > > Stewart > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:17:31 +0100 > From: Adrian Farrel > Reply-To: > To: 'Thomas Morin' , > > > > > I agree, but what can you do? > > Email to the RFC Editor to ask for help identifying what has changed. > Email to the xml2rfc team to ask them what the status is. > > A > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: routing-discussion [mailto:routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > >Of Thomas Morin > >Sent: 06 October 2014 12:47 > >To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > >Subject: Re: New RFC Editor Style Guide > > > >I totally agree with Stewart that the above 2 points would be useful. > >I would go as far as to say that not having it will be inefficient and > >result in much duplicated effort. > > > >-Thomas > > > >Stewart Bryant: > >> Two things that would be really useful to me would be: > >> > >> 1) A succinct description of what do I need to do differently compared > >> to what I have done for the past lots of years. > >> > >> 2) Some information on what I need to do because xml2rfc will not do > >> it for me. > >> > >> In other words if I just take the defaults from xmlmind and shove the > >> output into xml2rfc and make sure super picky ID-nits has calmed down > >> how much of this do I care about? > >> > >> - Stewart > > > >_______________________________________________ > >routing-discussion mailing list > >routing-discussion@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > > From nobody Mon Oct 20 15:02:10 2014 Return-Path: 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 D4D121ACF70 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:02:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 Xvoy8GyHaLCK for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 872A01ACF6C for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s9KM1xQV012271; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:02:00 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201410202202.s9KM1xQV012271@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: RFC Editor Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: New RFC Editor Style Guide In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:35:44 PDT. <20141017003544.GA21325@rfc-editor.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:01:59 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/V8aFuh_wO5JRa78GS5GuwcR6Sis Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , Stewart Bryant X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:02:09 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > * listing the "country short name" in the postal address (if listed) in > the Authors' Addresses section (Section 4.12) => I have a concern about this because the "country short name" aka ISO IS 3166 two letter code is explicitely *not* recommended by the UPU which has the authority about *postal* addresses (what is recommended is the full country name in capital letters in the dispatching country language or an internationally recognized language (i.e., read English)). Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From nobody Wed Oct 29 06:57:39 2014 Return-Path: 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 2C8621A00F9; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 TLF1Imw1hg1J; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x236.google.com (mail-yh0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 932891A00C5; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 29so620250yhl.41 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BwnTZECvvNx90SFa8DAr6GYoKbKePaGi2Tljee1FNSE=; b=ejPcU02K3h6nXB75q5f0yt4+l9WuY24COqQpk/HxuH4LcBHCSVPQjD+Nhzo8/1eR2G lMy4cbMZGcdtU1HPv2txhW/i+T8Qrk5WgjOSLD8AUtdOWbuv6FyRStSjW26LNMxY1IbL BrVSrrQQpelvyDgZsjeDg2i7cjBNbW+/7uMOcREY+vPmLQ1tln6OQSKtSijodumUgqm8 72X897EvA00A5AdWqsJW3uFx5XEx1gRkefJTVHmSXMmrGO5MnPwQ/VmG86kWNepTwuLp YDJpicN/ytw+RUX6hbuaKT0RhckTWhqqfOi6PODgcXhnauvPQb4QVwl564tXEmQQJdmS qyDA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.23.231 with SMTP id v67mr1925171yhv.48.1414591048880; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.113.10 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 06:57:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:57:28 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: AD statement on development of IETF-standard routing-related YANG models From: Alia Atlas To: "netmod@ietf.org" , "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122a6caf8966a05069024f8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/BcOfTNh4oZbC1Cr9fDDOW1279_8 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:57:33 -0000 --089e0122a6caf8966a05069024f8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Development of standardized YANG models has seriously increased this year. Of course, this is a good problem to have. There are close to 30 different drafts related to YANG models for routing; coordination between these drafts is necessary. NETMOD is also hard at work on a backwards-compatible YANG 1.1. From the IETF's experience with developing MIBs, it was critical to have the domain-area experts involved in writing and reviewing MIBs and we believe that it is similarly critical to situate the work on YANG models in the working groups where the appropriate domain-experts can be easily found. Actively encouraging and cultivating the review of those with the expertise in modeling with YANG and deep understanding of its features is also critical to the success of standardized YANG models. This expertise is found in the NETMOD working group and among the YANG doctors ( https://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html). We, as the Routing and Ops and Management Area Directors, would like to see work proceed as follows. 1) The mailing list, rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org, has been created to coordinate among the different routing YANG models and drafts. For instance, there may be common groupings to be defined, interactions between models to be determined, and so on. To facilitate this coordination work, we are developing a job description for a secretary for the mailing list and hope to appoint someone to that role. 2) Routing-related YANG models must be targeted for adoption at the appropriate WGs in the Routing Area. If the appropriate WG is unclear, please bring the question to the RTGWG and the rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org mailing list. RTGWG can either direct where the work goes or, if there is no appropriate other WG, make a decision about adopting the draft. 3) The NETMOD charter has been open to accept work item that don't fall under the responsibility of an existing WGs: The NETMOD WG may also develop any additional data models written in YANG that the WG considers core building blocks and that do not fall under the charters of other active IETF working groups. The NETMOD WG may simply add such milestones as it sees fit, with the advice and consent of the responsible AD. In case of routing-related YANG models, even if there are no responsible existing WG, it's expected that the standardization happens in the RTGWG. 4) It is common and expected that sometimes work needs to be discussed in multiple WGs, even though it is only adopted in one. Examples would include NETMOD discussing a model for OSPF to consider how it relates to draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg, RTGWG discussing draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg to encourage review and discussion about its use as a base for routing-related models, etc. 5) We have heard a strong desire from the community to rapidly encourage development of standardized YANG models. Towards that end, we expect and encourage more and frequent virtual interims (some probably joint between WGs). To have such a pace work well, we need authors, reviewers, and contributors to expect to spend time on this work on an on-going basis. 6) Since many YANG doctors also participate in NETMOD and since NETMOD is having weekly virtual interims, it may prove convenient to provide feedback on YANG models in this forum. When done so, to ensure the interested parties are aware of the relevant models to be discussed and can arrange their schedules to call in, the agenda should be forwarded with at least a week's to the rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org and to the relevant WGs. When the virtual interim is used to provide YANG doctor feedback, preference should be given to drafts already adopted by a WG; discussing one model does not imply partiality or a request to the WG appropriate to consider adopting the draft. 7) To provide a common location to find proposed YANG models and be able to verify their accuracy, Tom Nadeau, one of the NETMOD chairs, has set up a GitHub repository at: https://github.com/YangModels/yang. All work contributed to it is subject to the IETF Contributions policy, as summarized via the very very familiar IETF Note Well. 8) For the second IETF meeting in a row, a "YANG Advice and Editing Session" (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/tutorials/yang-session.html) is organized on the Sunday before the IETF meeting. This is your chance to sit down with a YANG doctor and to get feedback on your YANG module. If you have any questions, please let us know. Regards, Alia, Benoit, Adrian, & Joel --089e0122a6caf8966a05069024f8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Development of standardized YANG models has seriou= sly increased this year.=C2=A0 Of course, this is a good problem to have. T= here are close to 30 different drafts related to YANG models for routing; c= oordination between these drafts is necessary.=C2=A0 NETMOD is also hard at= work on a backwards-compatible YANG 1.1.=C2=A0 From the IETF's experie= nce with developing MIBs, it was critical to have the domain-area experts i= nvolved in writing and reviewing MIBs and we believe that it is similarly c= ritical to situate the work on YANG models in the working groups where the = appropriate domain-experts can be easily found.=C2=A0 Actively encouraging = and cultivating the review of those with the expertise in modeling with YAN= G and deep understanding of its features is also critical to the success of= standardized YANG models.=C2=A0 This expertise is found in the NETMOD work= ing group and among the YANG doctors (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/= directorate/yang-doctors.html).

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"font-size:13px">We, as the Routing and Op= s and Management Area Directors, would like to see work proceed as follows.=

1) The mailing list,=C2=A0rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org, has been cre= ated to coordinate among the different routing YANG models and drafts.=C2= =A0 For instance, there may be common groupings to be defined, interactions= between models to be determined, and so on.=C2=A0 To facilitate this coord= ination work, we are developing a job description for a secretary for the m= ailing list and hope to appoint someone to that role.

2) Routing-rel= ated YANG models must be targeted for adoption at the appropriate WGs in th= e Routing Area.=C2=A0 If the appropriate WG is unclear, please bring the qu= estion to the RTGWG and the=C2=A0rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org=C2=A0mailing list.=C2=A0 RTG= WG can either direct where the work goes or, if there is no appropriate oth= er WG, make a decision about adopting the draft.

3)=C2= =A0The NETMOD charter has been open to accept work item that don't fall= under the responsibility of an existing WGs:
The NETMOD WG may also develop any additional = data models written in YANG that the WG considers core building blocks and = that do not fall under the charters of other active IETF working groups. Th= e NETMOD WG may simply add such milestones as it sees fit, with the advice = and consent of the responsible AD.
In case of routing-related YANG models, even if there are no respons= ible existing WG, it's expected that the standardization happens in the= RTGWG.

4) It is common and expected that somet= imes work needs to be discussed in multiple WGs, even though it is only ado= pted in one.=C2=A0 Examples would include NETMOD discussing a model for OSP= F to consider how it relates to draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg, RTGWG discus= sing draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg to encourage review and discussion about= its use as a base for routing-related models, etc. =C2=A0

5) We hav= e heard a strong desire from the community to rapidly encourage development= of standardized YANG models.=C2=A0 Towards that end, we expect and encoura= ge more and frequent virtual interims (some probably joint between WGs).=C2= =A0 To have such a pace work well, we need authors, reviewers, and contribu= tors to expect to spend time on this work on an on-going basis.

6) Since many YANG doctors also participate in NETMOD and sinc= e NETMOD is having weekly virtual interims, it may prove convenient to prov= ide feedback on YANG models in this forum.=C2=A0 When done so, to ensure th= e interested parties are aware of the relevant models to be discussed and c= an arrange their schedules to call in, the agenda should be forwarded with = at least a week's to the=C2=A0rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org=C2=A0and to the relevant WG= s. When the virtual interim is used to provide YANG doctor feedback, prefer= ence should be given to drafts already adopted by a WG; discussing one mode= l does not imply partiality or a request to the WG appropriate to consider = adopting the draft.

7) To provide a common location= to find proposed YANG models and be able to verify their accuracy, Tom Nad= eau, one of the NETMOD chairs, has set up a GitHub repository at:=C2=A0https://github= .com/YangModels/yang.=C2=A0 All work contributed to it is subject to th= e IETF Contributions policy, as summarized via the very very familiar IETF = Note Well.
8) For the second IETF meeting in a row, a "YANG Advice and Editing S= ession" (http://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/tutorials= /yang-session.html) is organized on the Sunday = before the IETF meeting. This is your chance to sit down with a YANG doctor= and to get feedback on your YANG module.

If you have any questions, please let us kn= ow.

Regards,
Alia, Benoit, Adrian, & Joel
--089e0122a6caf8966a05069024f8-- From nobody Thu Oct 30 11:45:30 2014 Return-Path: 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 6CA551A1AA6; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:45:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 i2zhvmRBCs-T; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:45:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com (mail-yh0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E16691A1A91; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id i57so1919097yha.6 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lO2ojd0VT/nsYf0A4kMg2wEKEUKZNrMho+Gj19X93nQ=; b=bcMB3sADqEX/3FfRrTXuv4rYbdlmwRzfAriEuBKveyUvWopwK4fPOoxr6CUo2Gwi0f 18me0NLLL6fJN00XrfgTCLwb6+9SyOjvYIplyPftG468F8hOdQyOGIGOUD2C/PVkvXrd efGYR7gjsMluXBETBOriMrGCeoayHx5KYDWqlijFLEIurcU2m/d3Dx1hkt2L3aLdjxye Cm3Q0fRky0jbUtfNFHhO+mCtnvVTKhV1DlZyG9WDFhgbxA/skV0ONr5L11/OeUVMPIs9 BG72VxyCFU7B4hKp+p+QAIBnIsgMMaM//7//COfJpVXSHVr34udSw+FBPmDG/tk0nw8D nfsA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.170.140.84 with SMTP id h81mr4130309ykc.55.1414694681341; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.113.10 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:44:41 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Routing AD office hours at IETF 91 in Honolulu From: Alia Atlas To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" , "rtg-chairs@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113957f6f277820506a845a3 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/ycUBomBwHT8qo4jraJCSctrSTAQ X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:45:28 -0000 --001a113957f6f277820506a845a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Adrian and I will be having our Routing AD office hours on Sunday from 14:30 to 16:00 in the IESG Breakout Room. When the specific room is assigned, we'll send out the update. Come on by with concerns, questions, and issues. If you know you'll be coming and would like us to be potentially up to speed on the topic, please send email. See you in Honlulu, Alia --001a113957f6f277820506a845a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adrian and I will be having our Routing AD office hours on= Sunday from 14:30 to 16:00 in the IESG Breakout Room.=C2=A0 When the speci= fic room is assigned, we'll send out the update.

Come on b= y with concerns, questions, and issues.=C2=A0 If you know you'll be com= ing and would
like us to be potentially up to speed on the topic,= please send email.

See you in Honlulu,
= Alia



--001a113957f6f277820506a845a3--