[{"author": "Scott Mansfield", "text": "thumbs up
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:43:07Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "Draft i was talking about -> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yg3bp-ccamp-network-inventory-yang/
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:46:28Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Thanks, Dhruv.
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:46:57Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "@Dhruv: during the OPSAWG meeting at IETF112, an issue has been raised with the term \"inventory\" being a bit ambiguous
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:47:23Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "I agree
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:47:45Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "in the broad sense, everything that can be modelled as a list in YANG can be qualified as an inventory model
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:48:00Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "in the CCAMP draft we have tried to address the comment qualifying the scope of the draft to be hardware inventory on a network scale
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:48:34Z"}, {"author": "Dhruv Dhody", "text": "RFC 8345 hints it at as maintenance of an inventory of nodes contained in a network
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:49:39Z"}, {"author": "Scott Mansfield", "text": "Not everything fits cleanly in a hierarchical structure. For inventory complex matrix of interconnections is needed. Hence the genesis of my question.
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:50:45Z"}, {"author": "Qin Wu", "text": "I think ccamp's model is more related to hardware yang model in rfc8348
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:50:48Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "We can leave this open for one or two weeks
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:53:15Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "and then proceed with publication if no, last minute surprises
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:53:36Z"}, {"author": "Henk Birkholz", "text": "@Thomas: we have you in queue, is that on the current item?
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:59:08Z"}, {"author": "Henk Birkholz", "text": "nvm :-)
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:59:33Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "@med is that on the PM draft?
", "time": "2022-03-24T13:59:51Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "Yes, Joe.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:04:55Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "Do you know of people who are implementing?
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:07:18Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "Can't hear anything
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:08:54Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "@Thomas, we can raise a CFA on this work on list.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:09:14Z"}, {"author": "Tianran Zhou", "text": "Yes, the sound is really small
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:10:12Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Copy that, Tianran.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:10:43Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Did it get better?
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:14:53Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "I'm managing at this point
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:15:05Z"}, {"author": "Tianran Zhou", "text": "better
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:16:38Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "@Ken you fell out of the mic,
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:25:16Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "+1 to Eliot's comment
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:33:57Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Or as Eliot says, get IETF confirmation that there will be no new TLS 1.2 registry entries.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:34:49Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "This is a useful work. It is also useful not only for \"interpreting \" data, but also for setting context to reproduce data. Some of the context data may be already included in a telemetry module. To be careful about inconsistency.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:43:03Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Thanks, @med. I didn't get a chance to reiterate your comment at the mic, but I appreciate you getting it on the record.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:47:53Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "@med. Yes, good feedback.
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:55:09Z"}, {"author": "Fan Yang", "text": "@charles, yes, pre configured and inband living learning can be used simutaneously
", "time": "2022-03-24T14:57:12Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "@charles, you still in the queue?
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:00:35Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "Can Xiaoming accomplish what he wants with the EVENT mib?
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:03:16Z"}, {"author": "Tianran Zhou", "text": "I think so. But we move to netconf/yang.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:04:55Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "Everybody read that quick ;-)
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:13:08Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "ha ha
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:13:24Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Yeah, was hoping I could have an async poll...
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:13:59Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "I just saw, by chance, that there was a poll in meetecho. I'm connected, but I don't always at that screen. So I was missing the previous poll. WG chairs, just announce the poll live.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:14:26Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "as you just did right now, thanks.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:14:37Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "Chairs are very difficult to hear
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:15:58Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "(w/ BBF Liaison Mgr hat on) The BBF has been asking for IETF support on this and the prior draft for literally years.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:17:17Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "@Dave- I'm thinking a month.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:17:46Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "The participants are willing to work in the IETF according to the IETF process, but there needs to be either progress in the WG or a decision to let the BBF progress on their own.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:18:28Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Like Eliot said, we will gently poke the list to get some reviews and do a CFA as this work is much more digestible.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:19:14Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "@Eliot - if a month is needed by the WG that's fine, but let's make that a fairly hard deadline for a WG decision on the draft, with no action indicating the BBF can proceed outside of the IETF.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:19:25Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "(BTW, I'm usually the LAST person to advocate for changing IETF specification outside of the IETF. However, in this case if there is no WG interest it may be warranted.)
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:20:22Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "@chairs/ADs: some of the work is directed to opsawg (e.g., radext) but the experience in the last years is that it is not easy to progress related documents here for various reasons. Is it possible to adopt an adapted process for the maintenance of these protocols? Other proposals?
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:21:34Z"}, {"author": "Dave Sinicrope", "text": "@Joe - thanks!
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:23:23Z"}, {"author": "Eliot Lear", "text": "operators are going to do whatever anyway.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:27:08Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "Some of these issues were raised during the publication, of RFC9000. The lack of signals to troubleshoot is still an issue.
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:28:08Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "The S and L bits are useful for OPS matters. The version does not matter that much, IMO
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:28:53Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "Still the L bit is not even supported
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:29:10Z"}, {"author": "Charles Eckel", "text": "Perhaps it could be reworded as advising against blocking based on version that is not 'x' or greater than 'y'. Blocking on verson==\"known-vulnerable-version\" seems a reasonable thing for operators to do
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:30:17Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "@Al: you can use that \"magic\" answer for your documents ;-)
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:32:52Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "I think Diego is referring to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9065
", "time": "2022-03-24T15:35:08Z"}]