yeah if you want to discuss it with the ops/management ADs and the chairs that's fine.
I don't think there's a reason to involve the whole iesg. Thanks joel On 5/26/14, 10:48 AM, Hirochika Asai wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
