js and Joel, Thank you for your comments.
I agree that the IESG statement seems to be talking about configuration, but I cannot definitely say that the objects I listed in my previous E-mail are out of the IESG statement's scope. I think it would be better to move this issue to the IESG, but I don't keep up the procedure. May I, as an author of the draft, send an E-mail stating this issue to [email protected], CCing WG? Or ask WG chairs to handle it? Thank you. Hirochika On May 27, 2014, at 1:24 AM, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/26/14, 9:20 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:42:47AM -0700, joel jaeggli wrote: >>> On 5/26/14, 2:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>>> Asai, >>>> >>>> the IESG statement is here: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html >>>> >>>> My reading is that it specifically talks about configuration. While >>>> the discussion started with "lets ban all write access", it may be >>>> important to note that the final statement does not say this. Hence, >>>> I am not sure we have to remove the MAX-ACCESS read-write. >>> >>> some of the vm options do cause me existential peril. The remaining >>> one's however do not. so I think Juergen's assessment is a correct one. >>> The statement seems to be serving it's purpose! >>> >> >> Joel, can you please decrypt your message so that it becomes perhaps >> actionable? > > I'm agreeing with you. > >> /js >> > > -- Hirochika Asai <[email protected]>, The University of Tokyo _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
