Speaking as a contributor and one who reviewed both the current draft as well as the previous, I support the adoption of this, and I appreciate the modifications to the implementation status section, as well as the clarity around when to use the geofeed: and remarks: attributes. I do wonder if the new text pertaining to geofeed files only being CSV (Section 2) could be simplified with normative language:
Per [RFC8805], geofeed files MUST only consist of CSVs in UTF-8 text format. Joe From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]> Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 15:47 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update Coming out of 117, there was an action to put the 9092bis document up for WG adoption. The authors have all responded that there is no known IPR pertaining to this document. This document is an update to the guidelines for finding and using geofeed data. Therefore, we would like to start a two week CfA for https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update/. Please reply on-list with your comments and whether or not you support working on this document. The CfA will run until EOD on August 21, 2023. Thanks. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
