Hi， I am a little bit confused about the schedule, An said the meeting this month is 8/23(PST), why we can do the creation review at 8/31? Kaiyuan

Thanks An for the correction. So i believe the earliest possible date we can do the creation review is 08/31 (10 AM PST) or if you prefer the APAC timezone then its 09/27. -- Thanks Anil

TSC holds APAC meeting every fourth Thursday of every month, the next meeting is on 8/24 (8/23 in Pacific Time Zone). Best Regards, An Ho

Hi Duankauyuan, Looks like GNT project proposal is ready for the creation review, so we can officially start the two week of review process for TSC to review the proposal. I believe month end TSC

The Yang model currently is defined by ourselves, some attribute fields refer to the standard definition of IETF. ----邮件原文---- 发件人：Robert Varga <nite@...> 收件人："段凯元"

Hello, Thanks. One immediate question: when you mention 'we have defined a new YANG model which provides the abstraction of different kinds of southbound resources', is this model based on the IETF

Hi, everyone We are glad to get more advice from you before we finally submit our code for the IPR review and the creation review. Here is the link:

Hi, everyone We are still discussing with Colin about the TTP project(integrate or not), thus currently, we only create the project proposal about GNT(General Network Topology). Please review it.

Thanks Colin, I’ll start project creation process.

Sounds good. Let me just confirm with the other OpenFlow Plugin committers.

A long-belated time later, congrats: https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/tsc/2017-July/007714.html Feel free to start the process of creating the

It just seems easier to me to put the code in OpenFlow plugin than to pull a new project out of a hat that somehow doesn't behave like normal projects. If we can move it to OpenFlow plugin for now,

As a openflow committer hat on, I also don't have any strong objection here. -- Thanks Anil

I believe it was more of a library that could be used by any project for LLDP protocol packets - even though it's currently used only by OpenFlow Plugin. Hence we thought a central place would be

I'm happy either way. The fact that lldp "is a protocol" doesn't seem like a compelling argument for why it can't go in the OpenFlow plugin project to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Abhijit, is

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project? --Colin

Hello TSC, I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion. This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the

Some recommendations: 1) Reach out to the existing TPP project first. You can have a separate project if you want to (and it may even be the right play), but its useful to talk to adjacent projects

Regarding: "I know there is already a project related to TTP in the community, but it has not updated and code contribution for a long time and its orientation is also unclear, so we hope to lead a