I am closing the WG LC for this document. The LC prompted some good comments from DIR reviews and a comprehensive review from Adrian which led to a TEAS cross-review.
The biggest discussion came between Tom P and the WG/authors on the definition of what a SAP is in the vein of this doc. While some of his suggestions have made it into the latest revision of the document, I am not certain this discussion has been fully resolved. The last email I saw was https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/D-z_rGqFl8V47fHlAkwSqiOxEDk/. Is this resolved? Based on that, we can take -05 forward to the IESG once we get a shepherd. But this point seems important to resolve. Joe On 4/22/22 15:07, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > Hello, Opsawg. The last round of comments on this draft have been > discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG LC for > this work. Please provide any and all feedback on list before the end > of the day May 13, 2022. > > Authors, if you have suggestions for a good shepherd for this document, > we'd love to hear them. > > I have requested reviews from Ops and Routing on this work. > > Thanks. > > 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
