[I just realized that the authors of draft-hartman-snmp-sha2 were not in cc]
> We chairs see a preference on the opsawg mailing list to adopt > draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp as a working group document. > > That said, we would like to request that the authors of the two > drafts try one more time to compromise on a single document. > Actually, I hoped that my suggestion on truncation could be (a first step of) a compromise. I am open for a discussion and am awaiting the feedback of the authors of the other draft. Regarding presentation style, the majority expressed that our draft is pretty close to what they would like the RFC to look like. Therefore, I see the ball in the field of the authors of draft-hartman-snmp-sha2. I am open to suggestions for improvements. > We also invite a representative of the authors of each document to > discuss the issues during the opsawg session during IETF 91 (Nov 12 - > 9:00 AM). > > We will try to judge the consensus of those present at the session, > and then on the mailing list, to determine a path forward. Unfortunately, we will not be able to attend the IETF 91. Is there the possibility of a video chat or a conference call? -- Johannes _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
