Hi Tim (cc: opsawg WG),
It looks like there have been a number of updates to this document in version
-10 (you would've reviewed -09). Does this need another review?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10
This is on Thursday's IESG telechat agenda. If
Reviewer: Xufeng Liu
Review result: Ready with Issues
This is a review of the YANG module in draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-10.
Sec 5.1. and 5.2
1) The container “client-profile” is duplicated twice. Is there any reason for
the duplication?
2) As a convention, in IETF YANG modules, the node name of
Hello, This submission has no changes from -00, it is only to bump the
expiration date.
Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:38:29AM -0800, internet-dra...@ietf.org:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> Title : TACACS+ Security and SSH
Henk Birkholz wrote:
> This internet draft updates RFC8520. The authors believe the
I think that this document needs to be Proposed Standard.
It normatively updates RFC8520, which I believe went through as AD Sponsored,
which itself is PS.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT
Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Please reply with your active support (+1 required) or objections and you
> assessment of whether or not it is ready to proceed to publication before
> January 6th 2023.
As an author, I think that it's ready to go.
There was some DT activity to mark it's
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a four week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-05.html
ending on Friday, January 6th 2023.
Several reviews of this document were submitted. The most recent one
from the
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a four week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-05.html
ending on Friday, January 6th 2023.
This internet draft updates RFC8520. The authors believe the
Internet-Draft is ready
Hi Med,
Sorry, still not clear (in my head) on the exact differentiation between
sap-status and service-status.
Also, a few other nits that I spotted:
s/is capable to host/is capable of hosting/ (two places)
s/ that uniquely identifies SAP/ that uniquely identifies a SAP/
s/ are tagged as ready
