Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > Now we have IOTOPS for more bandwidth to discussion on MUD. > I think it would be a good idea to collect more interest in IOTOPS, and bring to OPSAWG.
I'm rather mystified by the meaning of this statement. As WG chairs you are empowered to use your judgement, and you can run any process you like to decide whether to adopt work, including, I like to remind, doing it by fiat. The "two week adoption call" is just a common process. So, clearly you are suggesting some other process. Perhaps you could explain to me what process you have envisioned here so that I can follow it? --- To those in the WGs, perhaps you could read: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-mud-qrcode/ Editorial changes most welcome at https://github.com/CIRALabs/securehomegateway-mud/tree/ietf I should note that there is almost no content in this document which the IETF will have change control on. (I say almost, because I could say none, but I might be wrong) This is an application of a Reverse Logistics Association profile of the MH10.8.2 Committee QR code control protocol to include an RFC8520 entry. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
