Thanks, Eliot
Good point, forgot to ask/mention this point in my previous emails.
As an ANIMA contributor, i would love for a draft/->RFC like BRSKI to
mention known existing implementations, especially open source, even if just
PoC.
But i have no idea if and/or how thats seen to be appropriate by IETF
standards. Traditionally i think it was not done, but then again,
with the amount of focus (not to say hype ;-) the IETF does around
open source and hackathons, it almost sounds absurd to me not to mention such
code.
I am only aware of github.com/cisco/libest, but would love to see
any known code be mentioned. Single sentence with references to
appropriate URLs to those implementations would suffice IMHO.
What do others think/know about BCP in IETF protocol RFC re such mentioned of
known code ?
(i know, there can be implementation experience drafts/RFC later on as
well, but i think that's an independent, more in-depth effort.)
Cheers
Toerless
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 08:56:17AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have reviewed the document and we have a PoC. I am also aware of
> others that have done PoC code. I am not aware of any issues.
>
> Eliot
>
>
> On 31.05.18 03:56, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Dear ANIMA WG,
> >
> > After thorough review and discussions on the mailing list and in bootstrap
> > meetings, leading to the -15 version the authors and WG chairs think the
> > draft
> > is now mature enough for working group last call.
> >
> > This e-mail starts a two-weeks period for evaluation of this document by
> > the WG.
> >
> > Please provide your feedback on the ANIMA mailing list by end of June 14th,
> > 2018.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards
> >
> > Toerless (for the ANIMA chairs).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Anima mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
> >
>
>
--
---
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
