I believe we had sufficient review during the last round of WGLC to advance these documents *if* the concerns previously raised have been sufficiently covered. The one significant detail where that work is unclear is whether the security considerations under current discussion in draft-hares-i2rs-security warrant specific additional detail in the architecture draft.
If you've previously raised concerns on these drafts, please note to the list whether you believe they've been addressed. If you were paying specific attention to the security issues, please also review the security draft. The week is yet young. Hopefully the group can be convinced to complete this work by Friday. :-) -- Jeff On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 07:09:56PM -0400, Alia Atlas wrote: > Based upon the WGLC comments, I have updated these two drafts. Because I > believe that the changes are not particularly controversial (except for the > new reference to NETCONF and RESTCONF), I've published the updated versions > so that the WG can verify the changes at the same time as my co-authors. > > The differences for the architecture draft can be found at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-03&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-04 > > and for the problem-statement at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-03&difftype=--html&submit=Go%21&url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-problem-statement-04 > > Thanks, > Alia > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
