Hi OPSAWG and all, I support the progress of this document. This document looks mature enough. I appreciate that the authors provide detailed use cases.
As Alex and Rob said, maybe it is also valuable to be discussed in NMOP. I have no strong opinion on which WG should adopt this document. But I am willing to enter the further discussion. Best, Jensen On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:06β―PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi authors, OPSAWG, WG chairs, > > I appreciate that the timing isnβt ideal, but given that NMOP has just > been successfully chartered, and Incident Management is one of the current > topics of focus for that WG, then I think that it would be better for this > document to be discussed, and potentially adopted, within that WG. I.e., > so that all the incident management related drafts and discussions are kept > to one place. > > I appreciate that this will potentially slow the adoption a bit, since I > think that NMOP should meet first, and this draft should then be presented > in NMOP, but hopefully it would only slow the adoption call by a few months. > > Note β this doesnβt stop interested parties showing their interest in this > work, reviewing the draft and providing comments now. And of course, that > discussion can also happen on the NMOP list. > > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > *From: *OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Alex Huang Feng < > [email protected]> > *Date: *Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 05:25 > *To: *Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> > *Cc: *OPSAWG <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: [OPSAWG] π WG Adoption Call for > draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04 > > Dear OPSAWG, > > > > I support the progress of this document. > > > > I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder if > this draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is βincident > managementβ in the charter. > > Some of the related work such as > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/ is > planned to be discussed there. > > Just wondering. > > > > Regards, > > Alex > > > > On 9 Feb 2024, at 00:44, Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html > > > ending on Thursday, February 22nd. > > As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management. > Incidents in this context are scoped to unexpected yet quantifiable adverse > effects detected in a network service. The majority of the document > provides background and motivation for the structure of the YANG Module > that is in support of reporting, diagnosing, and mitigating the detected > adverse effects. > > The chairs acknowledge some positive feedback on the list and a positive > poll result at IETF118. We would like to gather feedback from the WG if > there is interest to further contribute and review. > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive comments you > may have. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
