Feel free to help with the minutes.
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:01:26Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-123-opsawg#
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:01:37Z"}, {"author": "Joel Jaeggli", "text": "100% agree wwith joe's sentiments about the charter
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:07:06Z"}, {"author": "Joel Jaeggli", "text": "yeah we have always had to pigeonhole reviewers
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:08:41Z"}, {"author": "Reshad Rahman", "text": "Not just with Benoit btw
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:09:14Z"}, {"author": "Reshad Rahman", "text": "@Diego, very basic question on the provenance document (which I haven't followed closely): is the signature needed only because there's no security for stored telemetry data (\"at rest\")?
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:36:41Z"}, {"author": "Diego Lopez", "text": "In the case of data at rest yes
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:49:36Z"}, {"author": "Diego Lopez", "text": "In other cases, it allows to make verification beyond the transport protocol
", "time": "2025-07-24T15:50:00Z"}, {"author": "Alex Huang Feng", "text": "I support this work
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:07:43Z"}, {"author": "Reshad Rahman", "text": "+1 to what Rob just said wrt to the tree also not being in the draft.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:38:03Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "@Jeff, we do have a template for drafts with yang modules: https://github.com/IETF-OPS-AD/I-D-with-yang-template
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:43:26Z"}, {"author": "Bal\u00e1zs Lengyel", "text": "Don't we have <CODE BEGINS> <CODE ENDS> markers already ?
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:44:49Z"}, {"author": "Thomas Graf", "text": "+1 to what Benoit just said. The YANG module being the draft.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:45:48Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "We do, but I want to emphasize that we need to \"signal\" the link to the GitHub repo for the module so tooling knows that _this_ URL is a URL to a YANG module.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:45:48Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "having a hard time taking the minutes. please make sure your comments are in the minutes.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:46:30Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-123-opsawg
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:46:45Z"}, {"author": "Holger Keller", "text": "so, i got this right, revisioning is in the yang-model. if i have implemented an older revision of the yang-model, am i still supporting the RFC?
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:47:31Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "As a contributor, I'd say it's more valuable to say you're implementing ietf-foo version 1.2.3 than the RFC per se.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:49:31Z"}, {"author": "Ebben Aries", "text": "If we look at other bodies of work out there (e.g. openconfig) what we generally see is an inverse issue where we have models without complementing documents where there needs to be in various cases.... where there are complementing documents we also see the need for alignment between versioning.... ime even in internal development the same issues exist... maybe what we need here is something in the middle in which development, validation, review, etc... all takes place in SCM but still couples it to the complementing doc (+1 to mahesh's comment now as i was typing)
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:51:01Z"}, {"author": "Bal\u00e1zs Lengyel", "text": "I think the main problem is not during rfc development. For me the main problem is that the model cannot be updated without reving the RFC. RFC update is slowwww.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:51:36Z"}, {"author": "Ebben Aries", "text": "at a min to start what id like to see is experimenting w/ SCM based reviews for all model development within IETF - manual line # commentary and collaboration is difficult and cumbersome
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:53:09Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "Yeah, I love the richness of GH reviews with inline comments, commit suggestions, etc.
", "time": "2025-07-24T16:53:32Z"}]