On Wednesday, August 17, 2016, Eliot Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Warren. Before we do that, I would like to make two proposals, > to keep things moving (and I'm not quite sure of order here); > > First, and hopefully most trivially, I propose just to capture a point > or two more from the expired informational document. This would be > non-normative text. I think much of it is there, but would like to > remove the outdated reference. Should take a few days.
Sure. > > Second, and hopefully not that more of a controversy, I would like to > request early IANA assignments to assist with interoperable > development. These would be listed in the IANA considerations section > of the current draft. If we need a WG draft to make this happen, that's > fine with me, but we should do a quick rev after the assignments. > > I believe that this *can* be accomplished without it being a WG doc, but it is better / cleaner / easier if we make it a WG doc and then ask for early assistant. We are fine with lots of revisions / it being submitted and then quickly revised. Oh, please also confirm (all authors) that any needed IPR disclosures have been made... W > Eliot > > On 8/16/16 9:33 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Dear OpsAWG, > > > > We see sufficient interest to go play in the MUD. > > > > Authors, please resubmit the document named draft-ietf-opsawg-mud (or > > something similar, this ain't yer first rodeo). > > > > While I have folks attention -- please remember to also review the > > TACACS+ document - we wish to WGLC it soon. > > > > > > W > > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Zhoutianran <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> Dear OPSAWG, > >> > >> The chairs would like to know if the WG participants agree that the > following document should be adopted as a WG document in OPSAWG. > >> Manufacturer Usage Description Specification: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud > >> > >> > >> The adoption poll will take two weeks. Please let us know your opinion > by August 16. It would also be good to hear who is willing to review and/or > implement or deploy the technology described in the document. > >> > >> Since we already found that the majority of the f2f participants at our > IETF96 session like this idea, please do speak up now if you do not agree > or have serious objections (with explanation of course). > >> > >> Regards, > >> Warren and Tianran > > > > > > > -- 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
