Hi Bria, All,
Re: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines
As a co-author, I also believe we need to make a decision on the next step for
this document.
We have proposed options for content evolution in previous ANIMA meetings.
Maybe a call for adoption as WG document will "force" us to take a decision.
Best regards, Laurent.
> -Original Message-
> From: Anima On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 07:14
> To: Anima WG
> Subject: [Anima] Pending ANIMA drafts
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Comments on the following drafts have been sadly lacking since IETF 106.
> As a result I have not asked for time on the April 9th agenda, especially
> since it will be 3 a.m. on April 10th for me.
>
> As a reminder, the base GRASP specification is sitting quietly in the RFC
> Editor queue waiting for a missing normative reference (the ACP draft).
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api
>
> This version was based on several reviews and there were no changes
> requested during IETF 106. I would like to ask for WG Last Call *now* on
> this draft to see if there is consensus. (It's Informational, like most
> IETF work on APIs. It is also about to expire; I would rather get some
> more comments before refreshing it.)
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-grasp-bulk
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-anima-l2acp-scenarios
>
> I would really like more feedback on these drafts. The first two are old
> enough that either the WG should adopt them, or they should be discarded.
> Without your feedback, nothing will happen.
>
> The l2acp draft has just expired, and will be revised shortly.
>
> Stay well
>Brian Carpenter
>
> ___
> Anima mailing list
> Anima@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
