Hi Carlos,
> On Apr 10, 2024, at 8:00 AM, Carlos Pignataro wrote:
>
> Hi, Suresh,
>
> Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!
Yep. No worries.
>
> Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional
> question to you -- context (my emphasis):
> •
>
I read whaaat-question-mark a few weeks ago, and I never noticed the obtuse
filename last time. I think the document is useful. I would wish that it
might give ANIMA's ACP a clear name... we would up with "Virtual In-Band OAM"
which I think nobody was happy about (but was least hated).
Once
Support adoption. I think this document is *very* useful (speaking as an
IOAM contributor in ippm).
Cheers,
Justin
On 4/10/24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
Thank you, Henk.
I support adoption of this document (as a co-author).
As spelled out in the Acknowledgements of this document, its genesis
started in this very mailing list with a need for clarification that seemed
deja vu.
As such, I feel updating RFC 6291 will take clarity to a next level.
Thank you, Jan! I appreciate the clarity and thorough explanation.
How is this problem statement you list below (my paraphrasing for
simplicity, please correct as needed):
(1) "devices can report their energy and/or power usage"
(2) "work belongs / is spread across multiple WGs and it is
Jari, Rob,
Jari already made this point in a visual, clear way, please see *Slide 2*
of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2022-eimpactws-01/materials/slides-interim-2022-eimpactws-01-sessa-02-big-picture-01.pdf
There have been a few meta-topics in various e-impact discussions:
1.
Hi, Rob,
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses -- please also see inline.
[Hi, Suresh, please find one small parenthetical note for you inline as
well]
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:28 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the comments. I’ve provided some comments
Hi, Suresh,
Thanks for the response, and apologies for my delay!
Please find my follow-up inline below, and in the meantime, one additional
question to you -- context (my emphasis):
- I seem to have gotten the impression, from your words and IAB program
lead slides, that there was no
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
ending on Thursday, May 2nd.
As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance"
Hi All,
I fully support the work and would like you to see it progress within NETMOD,
and have WG reviews and contributions.
As a co-author of the I-D and regular attendee of the network schedule side
meetings we've had at the last few IETFs, this is an important capability that
can be
10 matches
Mail list logo
