Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we’re coming close to needing a bit of a work plan for just the BRSKI > documents alone. That is- it’s not just how many documents but which ones, in > order to accomplish which functions. At this point, I am presuming that the > base document is just about done.
Yes, In theory it's back in the ADs' hands to put in the IESG queue.
I hope that the three reviews will be enough; but I suspect that there will
be a bunch of mis-understandings from some quarters that will need to get
resolved.
> The constrained-voucher doc looks like it
> needs to get pushed over the finish line.
Yes. The EST-COAPS part is done, the voucher part is done.
There are some hangups with references in CORE (SID stuff) that is going to
MISSREF badly once we get into the RFC editor queue.
> And then, it seems to me our
> chartering discussion might do well to focus down a bit on what is needed
for
> different operating environments, so as to help sort overlap in drafts
with
> an understanding of who wants to commit what code.
1) I think we will need to write some contrasting use case documents.
2) We will need some additional real-world experience.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
