Thanks for asking, Joe.
Yes, I think that the WG should be working on ACs. Yes, I think that this set of I-Ds form the basis for what needs to be covered. I am *slightly* queasy about there being four documents. I'd be happier if some consolidation were possible. But I have no concrete suggestions, and if the authors/WG think that this is the right number then I will support that decision. Adrian From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Sent: 02 October 2023 14:22 To: [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work At IETF 117, we asked the room if there was support to adopt the four attachment circuits drafts. The room had support (of the 75 present, 18 raised hands for adoption interest, 1 was opposed), but the list is where it counts. While the drafts aren't too terribly long, there are four of them, so we will do a three week call for adoption. Please review and comment on-list on the following indicating whether you support their adoption or not: * draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac * draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit * draft-boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit * draft-boro-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue The authors and contributors have all signaled there is no known IPR covering this work. The CfA will end on October 23. Thanks. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
