We'll conclude the WG Adoption Call in OPSAWG as planned and the result
will be one input to the NMOP chairs. Another input, of course, is the
notion of that "yet another set of terminology" would require
"collaboration and cooperation being clearly spelled out" to ensure
consistency.
The former is an adoption consideration, the latter is both an adoption
consideration and a potential WG item task.
On 20.02.24 15:48, Michael Richardson wrote:
Qin Wu <bill.wu=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Hi, NMOP Chairs: Since this document has been discussed in OPSAWG for a
> long time, and because it was ready for adoption there, and considering
> that it is now 'suddenly' in scope for NMOP, could we please consider
> moving the existing adoption poll to NMOP (perhaps extending it to make
> up for time when NMOP was not aware of the poll).
That sounds like a good idea to me.
I'll point out that WG chairs adopt documents by fiat: it's up to them.
[with being replaced by the AD if they do the wrong thing]
This business with consulting people is a courtesy :-)
So, Benoit and Mohammed (NMOP chairs) can just do this.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IรธT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
