Hi all, Scott and I just chatted about this. We see that there is interest in this topic, we think it is an important topic, and we would like to adopt /a/ document that addresses this.
We'd appreciate it if the authors of draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp and draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 can discuss how to move forward, possibly by combining the documents into one, or selecting one and folding in comments from the other. Again, we think that this is an important topic, and would like to get the best possible document adopted. Warren and Scott. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear OpsAWG WG, > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp. > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for > adoption by OpsAWG, > and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends Mon 25-Aug-2014. > > In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"): > If you are personally aware of any IPR that applies to > draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance > with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more > details.) > > > > Thanks, > Warren Kumari > (as OpsAWG WG co-chair) -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
