Doesnβt look like Henk approved the submission yet (and I did not). So we can cancel this submission, and you can repost.
Joe From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 08:47 To: 'Henk Birkholz' <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>, 'Carlos Pignataro' <cpign...@gmail.com> Cc: 'OPSAWG' <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 Hmmm, did Carlos jump the gun? Don't you hate enthusiastic people? If so, do you want us to undo the changes? Options would be: - Ask the Secretariat to unpost the latest revision - Post a change-back version of the draft Alternative is that "we" suck it up. - You post email to say, all changes made addressed only the adoption poll comments - You accept the adoption and we follow up per Carlos' plan Let us know. Cheers, A -----Original Message----- From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> Sent: 10 May 2024 13:43 To: Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com>; adr...@olddog.co.uk Cc: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 Hi Carlos, hi Adrian, please do it the other way around βΊοΈ The chairs ask the authors to first rename draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 to draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-00, keeping the content as is, and resubmit. And then post a -01 that addresses all discussion so far, as these represent WG feedback already. For the OPSAWG co-chairs, Henk On 09.05.24 03:08, Carlos Pignataro wrote: > Thank you, Henk, for the descriptive and thorough wrap of this adoption > call. > > Like Adrian, I'm also inclined to align with your conclusions, including: > > * "draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization" WFM -- even when it is much > _less_ expressive than the original, IMO ;-) > * As the other one of the editors, ofc more than happy to commit to, > seek, and follow the WG on the 'pro-active alignment'. > (understanding we are at a starting point in which the relevant > lexicon is 'reactively misaligned', or otherwise we would not need > this draft.) > > Net-net: All sounds good with thanks! > > I can post a rev++ addressing all discussion thus far, and then an > unchanged draft-ietf-opsawg-...-00 > > Thanks! > > Carlos. > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:14β―AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk > <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: > > Thanks Henk, > > Apologies for the fatuous original name of this draft (but it worked > to get everyone's attention ;-) > > - Yes, your suggested new name works for me. > > - Since you ask, as one of the editors, I commit to a "pro-active > alignment", making changes as requested by the WG, and paying > attention to any sources of similar terminology pointed out to us. > > Ciao, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> > Sent: 08 May 2024 08:50 > To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > this email concludes the 1st call for Working Group Adoption for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03. > > We received a healthy number of replies, including a good discussion > about "yet another set of terminology" and its intrinsic > usefulness/feasibility in the IETF. A good example reflecting the > overall discussion is the existing terminology established in the > DetNet > WG and published in RFC 9551. > > The chairs discussed the inputs and comments and believe this work > to be > feasible to be adopted as a working group I-D. This believe includes > the > expectation that no inconsistencies are introduced by this work and the > authors, editors, and contributors commit to a pro-active alignment > (scope and relationship of terms and their use in the respective > ecosystems) with other existing bodies of work that is brought to > attention in OPSAWG or otherwise. > > Typically, we would now ask to rename and resubmit as is. Alas, > there is > the inconsistency between draft name and draft title. Some concern > about > that naming was raised during the WGLC. While the draft name was fine > for the individual submission, the chairs tend to agree that a more > expressive draft name would benefit the work. Could the authors please > work with the WG to come up with a better draft name? We can kick this > off with a proposal from chairs: how about > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization? Please bash, so we can move > forward. The chairs assume that this naming exercise can be resolved > quickly. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > On 10.04.24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote: > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > > > this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of > > > >> > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html > > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html> > > > > ending on Thursday, May 2nd. > > > > As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations, > > Administration, and Maintenance" (OAM) is used currently & > historically > > in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol > agnostic > > terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower > > semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a > list of > > common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM > packets. > > > > The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but > there has > > not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather > > feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and > > review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last > > three weeks. > > > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive > comments > > you may have. > > > > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > > > Henk > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
