I did not push this further because it seemed non-obvious to me after
the discussion here, what would be needed to include the information
in the final RFC and whether that would be appreciated by others.
I hope in the absence of suhc text, there is motivation for a small followup
RFC with implementation experience after we have the RFC.
Wrt to providing implementation information as input to the reviewers,
i will be happy to include it into the shepherd writeup for the
IESG once i can close the last call.
Cheers
Toerless
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:31:50AM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
> On 31/05/18 02:43 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I did not hear a WG consensus to add a section on known implementations.
>
> I did not object to it, but found it a waste of time as it will be removed
> before publication. I note that the Shepherd could just reference this
> thread which contains a number of references to implementations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
