Warren Thanks for the info.
It seems to me that draft-turner-ccmib-02 is doing for SMI what a number of I-D are struggling (IMHO) to do for NETCONF/YANG right now. Apart from the overall objective e.g. "it describes managed objects used to manage key management implementations including asymmetric keys, symmetric keys, trust anchors, and cryptographic-related firmware" they seem to have little or nothing in common; and I know which approach seems, to a non-cryptographer like me, to have the right resonance. It is hard to be specific because draft-turner-ccmib-02 is disastrously short of descriptive text, not fit to be an RFC IMHO. It would be a shame if it were to proceed in its present form just as it would be a shame if the contents were not used to inform those working on the NETCONF/NETMOD equivalents. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Kumari" [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 4:37 PM This was largely a “here is a document which we want to send through the ISE, does the WG want it instead / anyone have any objections?” He and I had decided that it was polite to check with the WG, even though we were fairly sure the WG would not want it... W On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:25 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On May 8, 2019, at 06:12, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Joe > > > > I am struck by > > > > "CCMIB Sean Turner 5 minutes > > Sean wants no one to comment and no one commented" > > > > which seems consistent; no identifier for the whatever-it-is and so > > no-one said anything! > > I didn’t know how to summarize that any differently. That’s more or less > what he said at the mic. But his presentation is there for the details of > what he wants. > > Joe > > > > > Tom Petch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2019 10:52 PM > > Subject: [OPSAWG] Minutes for 104 > > > > > >> After a long delay I have posted the draft minutes from the IETF 104 > > opsawg/Ops Area session. I took these from notes I did in Etherpad as > > well as the video recording on YouTube. I missed one Huawei name at the > > mic with the NTF draft, but I think I captured most everything else. > >> > >> Please review and Tianran or I know what we need to change. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-opsawg-00 > >> > >> Joe > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OPSAWG mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > -- 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
