Dear OpsAWG WG, The authors of draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp have asked for this draft to be considered for OpsAWG adoption. It was presented and discussed somewhat at IETF91 in Dallas - there was a question raised about similarities / overlap with draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel (which lies with the IESG). After some discussions we have decided that these documents complement each other, and so ask the WG to consider draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp for adoption.
We would like 4-5 people to commit to editing and contributing to the document, and a similar number to commit to reviewing it. The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp/ 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 Thu 09-Jul-2015. 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-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp, 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
