I support the adoption without my chair hat. This is an useful work for extending the voucher format.
However, with my chair hat on, I am a little bit concern regarding to whether we have enough expertise to do this well within ANIMA WG. By the definition of ANIMA, we are focusing on autonomic procedures in network operation and management. I am not sure whether we can get enough reviewers to guarantee the quality of this type of format definition. The authors may suggest or abstract more experts to enrich ANIMA expertise so that we shall have more confidence to complete this type of work well. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: Anima <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 4:53 AM > To: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Anima] Resending: Call for adoption: > draft-richardson-anima-jose-voucher > > 1) I've already supported adoption. > > 2) > > > (2) Up to the point where an AD or other higher power might have > > objections, i really would like to see this document marked as an > > Update to RFC8366 so that we have a breadcrump trail from RFC8366 to > > this document (personally i am never quite sure what the strict requirements > are for such a marking). > > The draft says: > "This document does not extend the YANG definition of [RFC8366] at all, but > accepts that other efforts such as [I-D.richardson-anima-voucher-delegation], > [I-D.friel-anima-brski-cloud], and [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-async-enroll] do." > > I think that's very hard to interpret as "updates" since it explicitly says > "does > not extend". > > If you think this is unsatisfactory, support > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/ > > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
