This concludes the call for adoption of this document. Tom Petch expressed concern that the work on breaking out the common parts between this document and the L3NM (currently underway) might change the document that gets adopted. This is a valid concern; however, the L3NM is already adopted and will be changing in a similar fashion. I replied as much to Tom that as an individual, I’d like to see this work combined under the opsawg umbrella.
Given no other opposition and otherwise strong support for adoption, this document has been adopted by opsawg. Authors, please rename this document to draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm (I believe it was stated this was the desired name), upload it as such to data tracker with a -00 rev. DO NOT change anything else in the document. When uploading to DT, make sure you mark that this new document replaces draft-barguil-opsawg-l2sm-l2nm so that history is preserved. Thanks. Joe > On Jun 16, 2020, at 10:17, Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Hello, opsawg. I hope everyone is doing well. > > This starts a two-week poll for adoption of the L2 network module document. > There does seem to be interest in this work, and it is progressing nicely in > GitHub with side meetings. There appears to be questions on what will be > broken out into commonality between this module and the L3NM (work which is > also underway). So while we anticipate changes to this draft, the chairs > think it’s reached a point where we’d like to see if the WG wants to formally > adopt the work. > > Please reply on-list with your comments on the draft and whether or not you > support its WG adoption. We will conclude this call on June 30, 2020. > > Thanks. > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
