[OPSAWG]Re: Sheperd write-up for for YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit)

Thanks, Med. Luis, can you re-review and adjust your shepherd write-up accordingly? Joe From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 at 09:21 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO , opsawg@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circ...@ietf.org

[OPSAWG]Re: Sheperd write-up for for YANG Data Models for Bearers and 'Attachment Circuits'-as-a-Service (ACaaS) (draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit)

Thank you, Luis for the review and for agreeing to act as shepherd. I read through your write-up and this diff. I see you called out the IEEE802.1AX and IEEE802.1AB references, but I do not see that addressed in this diff or discussed here. I don’t like sending up drafts that have identified

[OPSAWG]Re: WG LC: Attachment circuits work

: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Friday, April 19, 2024 at 10:40 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling Discussion List Subject: WG LC: Attachment circuits work Thanks to efforts by the WG and cross-collaboration with TEAS, these four drafts are at the point to run

[OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03

Doesn’t 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 Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 08:47 To: 'Henk Birkholz' , 'Carlos Pignataro' Cc: 'OPSAWG' Subject: [OPSAWG]Re:  WG Adoption Call for

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

of the guidelines in BCP79 and the relevant RFCs below. The WG LC on this work is still open until May 10. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Friday, April 19, 2024 at 10:33 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work We’re up to WG LC

[OPSAWG] IETF 120 Meeting

Hello, WG. The request to schedule 120 meetings has just gone out to the chairs. We’ll be planning to meet in Vancouver (this time for our usual 2 hours). This is not a call for presentations yet. But we want to plant the seed early with people who think they might want to present. Get

Re: [OPSAWG] Confirm submission of I-D draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13

Thanks for the quick responses and push on this draft. And thank you, Med for stepping up to shepherd. FYI, we have asked for a review from TSVART at Med’s request to see what the appetite is for a dedicated port allocation. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Douglas Gash (dcmgash) Date:

[OPSAWG] WG LC: Attachment circuits work

Thanks to efforts by the WG and cross-collaboration with TEAS, these four drafts are at the point to run a WG LC. All currently reported issues have been resolved by the authors, and we are grateful to have four volunteers for shepherds. The Attachment Circuits work is divided into four

[OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

We’re up to WG LC on these four drafts. And while we did an IPR poll before, we want to be thorough since this work has evolved. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit/

Re: [OPSAWG] Bitfields vs. Unsigned RE: Re: [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX documents

/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh/shepherdwriteup/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-tsvwg-udp-ipfix/shepherdwriteup/ I confirm that there is no more blocking points for moving forward to IESG. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Sent: Tuesday, April

[OPSAWG] IETF 119 Minutes Posted

Hello, WG. The initial minutes from our 119 meeting are now posted: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-119-opsawg-202403180530/ Thank you to Rob, Adrian, and Jean for your contributions to the proceedings! Let us know if there are large errors or omissions. Henk and I are working

Re: [OPSAWG] Bitfields vs. Unsigned RE: Re: [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX documents

from reviews have now been addressed. Joe From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Date: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 at 11:04 To: Aitken, Paul , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Cc: ip...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Bitfields vs. Unsigned RE: Re: [IPFIX] WG LC: IPFIX documents Hi all, As indicated in IETF

Re: [OPSAWG] [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04

I support adoption of this work. It forms the foundation of work in other WGs, and I’m happy to have this worked by netmod if there is sufficient interest. As an opsawg co-chair, I’m copying opsawg to get their opinions. This work has been presented there and is a dependency of an ACL draft

Re: [OPSAWG] [ippm] draft-spiegel-ippm-ioam-rawexport

It need not wait. We would adopt on this list if we adopt in opsawg. And this work has already seen some discussion on-list today alone. As you say, we have many of the interest IPFIX crowd here already. It also seems like there is some IPPM cross-members to give this a proper holistic

[OPSAWG] Preparing for our IETF 119 session

Hello, WG. I hope everyone is doing well and those that traveled here to Brisbane are recovering from jet lag. Our WG session is tomorrow, Monday March 18 at 15:30 local time, 0530 UTC. Please review https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/technology/meetecho-guide-participant/ if you will be

Re: [OPSAWG] Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

I think your response reads well. Thank you for drafting this and inviting ITU-T to the part in mpls should they want to collaborate further. As an opsawg co-chair, I would be willing to co-sign. Joe From: Adrian Farrel Date: Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 11:45 To: 'OPSAWG' Cc: 'mpls-chairs'

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentations at IETF119

and overall WG engagement. I would hope talk of implementations might help generate such discussion. Joe From: Voyer, Daniel Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 09:23 To: Voyer, Daniel , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , Sriram Gopalakrishnan (sriragop) , Tianran Zhou , OPSAWG Cc: opsawg-chairs , Ralu Johny

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for presentations at IETF119

Hey, Sriram. We only have the one slot for 119, and one of the things the chairs discussed to keep the agenda manageable was focusing on work that had mailing list discussion already. I did a quick search through the IETF mail archives, and this draft has never once been raised on opsawg@ or

Re: [OPSAWG] Submission of new version of TACACS+ TLS Spec (V4)

Hello, Douglas (and other authors). Seeing as since we’re gearing up for IETF 119, I wanted to check to see when you might have a response and another version of the document planned in order to update the WG on progress. Ultimately, this is the reason we did the original T+ informational

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

=== Again, as contributor === Thanks, Nigel. Italo, and Qin for further comments. Nigel, you hit on my overall heartburn with this document. I ultimately feel that without strong collaboration with other bodies (de facto or otherwise) the IETF will end up with yet another set of terminology

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

=== As a contributor === I struggle to see why the IETF should be working on this. Clearly there are other SDOs that work in the area of incident management. This draft refers to a [IMHO tenuous] reference to a TM Forum API spec (which I cannot read as I am not a member), but ITIL has

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: IPFIX documents

that Thomas Graf as stepped forward to act as shepherd for these three documents. Thomas, let the chairs know if you need any help on the shepherd write-ups. Thanks. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, December 18, 2023 at 14:22 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: t...@ietf.org , ts...@ietf.org

[OPSAWG] WG LC: IPFIX documents

We’d like to kick off a [rather extended] WG LC on the three IPFIX-related “fixes” documents we have in the hopper. We’ve already requested some directorate reviews for these, and the authors feel they have stabilized well. Please review: *

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Rob, can you comment on this with respect to 9092 and the intent for this bis? Thanks. Joe On 11/30/23, 09:24, "Michael Richardson" wrote: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > I guess Rob has to call this out in the last call; please see RFC8067:

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

shepherd, mcr. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 13:56 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update This kicks off a two week WG LC on the update to “Finding and Using Geofeed Data”. This draft has received some

Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06

Thank you for your review, Bo. OPSAWG appreciates it. Joe From: Bo Wu via Datatracker Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 04:00 To: ops-...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Opsdir last call review of

[OPSAWG] IETF 118 opsawg minute

Thanks to Rob Wills and Rob Wilton (and any others that contributed to the minutes). The minutes from both opsawg sessions at IETF 118 (Monday and Wednesday) have been imported from HedgeDoc and are available at

Re: [OPSAWG] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-06

Thank you for the review, Sheng Jiang. OPSAWG appreciates it. Joe From: Sheng Jiang via Datatracker Date: Monday, November 20, 2023 at 06:36 To: int-...@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update@ietf.org , last-c...@ietf.org , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Intdir last call review of

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

> * The changes vs 9092 lists "Geofeed file only UTF-8 CSV", but the > NEW abstract removes the CSV mentions that were called out in > the abstract of RFC9092. I would revert to the OLD wording in > 9092. my, admittedly poor, memory is that this happened because some other

[OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

This kicks off a two week WG LC on the update to “Finding and Using Geofeed Data”. This draft has received some initial comments and a rather extensive certificate review from Job. We’d appreciate some more eyes to look iover the changes to the original RFC9092 and focus comments there.

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-05.txt

Unfortunately, we’ve had crickets from the directorates. Since we have a shepherd, I think we’ll kickoff a WG LC and hopefully that will encourage more eyes. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:54 To: Randy Bush , Ops Area WG Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action

[OPSAWG] IETF 118 opsawg/Ops Area session today!

Good morning to those of you in Prague. As a reminder, our first session is today at 13:00 in the Ballroom (on the Mezzanine). All slides for today’s session are now in Data Tracker. We still need a minutes scribe! Please let the chairs know if you are willing to help out. Thanks. Joe

Re: [OPSAWG] FW: New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-poweff-00.txt

Yes! I knew I was forgetting to mention something. That would help. I found myself doing a lot of back and forth scrolling to grok things. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Tianran Zhou Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 09:01 To: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) , opsawg Cc: Gonzalo

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-poweff-00.txt

You mention calculation in the draft, but I didn’t see this reflected in the data model. Note that I’m not sure the data model needs to address calculations per se. I think you could spell those out outside of YANG, with respect to the data objects. I just expected to see some specifics or

[OPSAWG] HEADS UP: Remote IETF 118 attendees Meetecho changes

The Meetecho interface has changed for 118. I affectionately think it looks like an Xfce desktop. But whatever your opinion, please familiarize yourself with the requirements for remote attendance at https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/technology/meetecho-guide-participant/ (the video is

[OPSAWG] IETF 118 Final opsawg agenda

Our agenda is now final. We have a somewhat packed schedule across both meeting slots (though we do have some buffer). Presenters, please start to work on your slides. We’d appreciate you submit them no later than this Friday (Nov 3). When building slides, focus on your designated time

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-opsawg-poweff-00.txt

I had a brief read of POWEFF, and I have some questions/possible discussion points for your presentation (as a contributor). You mention calculation in the draft, but I didn’t see this reflected in the data model. Note that I’m not sure the data model needs to address calculations per se. I

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 118 opsawg / OpsA tentative agenda

You’re right. I had it on my mind, and it fell out when I moved to Day 2. It’s there now. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-118-opsawg/ Joe From: Benoit Claise Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 11:50 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org , ops

[OPSAWG] IETF 118 opsawg / OpsA tentative agenda

Hello, WG and ADs. The tentative agenda for our two opsawg sessions for IETF 118 is up. We are close to capacity, but we still have some buffer time. Please review and let me know if I have missed any requests. https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/agenda-118-opsawg-00.txt We

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

as the broader WG) suggestions for a shepherd as this work progresses. A reminder to the WG that the authors and contributors replied that there is no known IPR covering this work. Thanks. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 09:21 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: CALL FOR ADOPTION

Re: [OPSAWG] Status of T+ TLS work

Thanks for the update, Douglas. We look forward to rev -04. Joe From: Douglas Gash (dcmgash) Date: Monday, October 23, 2023 at 16:14 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Status of T+ TLS work Hi Joe, An update is underway

Re: [OPSAWG] Session slot request in OPSAWG for draft-havel-opsawg-digital-map-01

We’re not specifically asking for which slot people want. But it does seem like we will need to use Wednesday. Who is presenting and will they be local or remote? Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Olga Havel Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:12 To: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Cc:

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Submit requests for IETF 118

Who is presenting and will they be local or remote? Joe From: Jean Quilbeuf Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 10:33 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Cc: ops-...@ietf.org Subject: RE: CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Submit requests for IETF 118 Dear OPSAWG chairs, We would like to present

Re: [OPSAWG] Session slot request in OPSAWG for network/compute exposure

Who is presenting and will they be local or remote? Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Jordi Ros Giralt Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:04 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Randriamasy, Sabine (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) Subject: [OPSAWG] Session slot request in OPSAWG for network/compute exposure

[OPSAWG] Status of T+ TLS work

Hello, authors. As we prepare for IETF 118, I wanted to get an update from you on the TACACS+ TLS work. The last revision was in June, and since then there have been comments from Alan, Med, Marc Huber, and Peter Marrinon. It seems like a revision is required. What plans do you have for

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-05.txt

Let me kick off some reviews in DT. From my chair perspective, I do think it’s close to WGLC. That should get a few more reviews. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Randy Bush Date: Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 18:13 To: Ops Area WG Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action:

Re: [OPSAWG] Session slot request in OPSAWG

So noted. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) Date: Friday, October 20, 2023 at 06:10 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) , Per Andersson (perander) , Snezana Mitrovic (snmitrov) , Esther Roure Vila (erourevi) , Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) ,

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

on the list. Further comments are welcome. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 at 09:21 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work At IETF 117, we asked the room if there was support to adopt the four attachment circuits drafts. The room

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

, October 17, 2023 at 04:43 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: RE: CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work Hi Joe, all, These drafts complement the work that was started with the LxNM models and the Service attachment points. It provides a much necessary glue to the ongoing

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Submit requests for IETF 118

FYI, the agenda is now final. The days and times below are still correct for the two opsawg sessions. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Friday, October 6, 2023 at 19:01 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: ops-...@ietf.org Subject: CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Submit requests for IETF 118 Hello, opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] Working group adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl-03

at 04:18 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: Tianran Zhou , opsawg@ietf.org , opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Subject: RE: Working group adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl-03 Hi, Joe Apologize for being late with this response. Please first allow me to give more context about this specific question, I

Re: [OPSAWG] Should the schedule YANG model be seperated from draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl?

I agree with Tianran. The scope of this document would be broader than just use within UCL-ACL if I understand the intent of the split. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Tianran Zhou Date: Monday, October 9, 2023 at 23:38 To: adr...@olddog.co.uk , maqiufang (A) , opsawg@ietf.org Cc:

[OPSAWG] CALL FOR PRESENTATIONS: Submit requests for IETF 118

Hello, opsawg (and Ops Area). The preliminary agenda is up at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/agenda. This time around we’re trying something new. We have two session slots. We have a typical two-hour slot currently on Monday from 13:00 to 15:00. This will be the combined

[OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

At IETF 117, we asked the room if there was support to adopt the four attachment circuits drafts. The room had support (of the 75 present, 18 raised hands for adoption interest, 1 was opposed), but the list is where it counts. While the drafts aren’t too terribly long, there are four of them,

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

Thanks, Richard. To be thorough, I assume you mean all four drafts? Joe From: Richard Roberts Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 05:17 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org , mohamed.boucadair , Oscar González de Dios , samir.barg...@gmail.com , Wubo (lana) , victor.lo...@nokia.com

Re: [OPSAWG] [EXTERNAL] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

Thanks, Ivan. To be thorough, I assume you mean all four drafts? Joe From: Ivan Bykov Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 04:01 To: opsawg@ietf.org Cc: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , mohamed.boucadair , Richard Roberts , Oscar González de Dios , samir.barg...@gmail.com , victor.lo...@nokia.com

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

I should have adjusted my boilerplate to say “these drafts”. I assume your “this draft” is applicable to all four? Joe From: samier Barguil Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 at 11:54 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , mohamed.boucadair , Richard Roberts , Oscar González de Dios

[OPSAWG] IPR POLL: Attachment circuits work

This is a consolidated poll for the following drafts: * draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac * draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit * draft-boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit * draft-boro-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue Authors and contributors on the To: line, please respond on-list

Re: [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5343 (7645)

Ginoza Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 10:03 To: Jürgen Schönwälder Cc: Chris Smiley , j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de , Warren Kumari , Rob Wilton (rwilton) , Henk Birkholz , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , zhoutian...@huawei.com , o...@delong.com , opsawg@ietf.org , RFC Editor Subject: Re

Re: [OPSAWG] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5343 (7645)

) , henk.birkh...@sit.fraunhofer.de , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , zhoutian...@huawei.com , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5343 (7645) Juergen is right. 5340 is the correct rfc and 5333 is a typo. Apologies. Can the errata be reassigned or should I resubmit? What is the best process

Re: [OPSAWG] Working group adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl-03

As a contributor, I support adoption of this work. I have previously read and commented on this document. The main reason for my comment this time is to address something that was brought up at the mic in 117. There was a question asked about needing deep packet inspection to effectively

Re: [OPSAWG] Looking for a shepherd for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Thanks, Warren. As people have have seen if they stalk Data Tracker, mcr has graciously agreed to shepherd this document. Thanks! Joe From: Warren Kumari Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 at 17:18 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Looking for a shepherd

Re: [OPSAWG] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model

Since you copied opsawg, I’ll make it clear my reply is as a contributor. As I said at the first IVY meeting, I like the CCAMP work a bit more as a base inventory draft. It feels more data-centric and less use-case centric if that makes sense. That said, it’s adopted work in CCAMP. What

[OPSAWG] Looking for a shepherd for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

With this work being adopted, the chairs would like to request someone to step forward to serve as shepherd when the document moves to LC. There has been a recent discussion between all WG chairs that ideal shepherds are those that are not authors and have a vested interest in the work and can

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update

replacing draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update. Do not make any other changes to the document text. Thanks. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 15:46 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update Coming out of 117, there was an action to put

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 9445 on RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services

Well done, authors and WG contributors! Thank you to Bernie for shepherding this. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 17:40 To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org , rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org Cc: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org ,

Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update

if the new text pertaining to geofeed files only being CSV (Section 2) could be simplified with normative language: Per [RFC8805], geofeed files MUST only consist of CSVs in UTF-8 text format. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 at 15:47 To: opsawg

[OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update

Coming out of 117, there was an action to put the 9092bis document up for WG adoption. The authors have all responded that there is no known IPR pertaining to this document. This document is an update to the guidelines for finding and using geofeed data. Therefore, we would like to start a

[OPSAWG] POLL FOR IPR: draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update

Ahead of a call for WG adoption of draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update, we’d like to poll for known IPR. Authors and contributors on the To: line, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that

[OPSAWG] IETF 117 Minutes

Thanks again to our excellent minutes taker, Rob Wilton. I have imported the minutes from HedgeDoc into Datatracker. Coming out of 117, I want to once again apologize to the two sessions for which there wasn’t time (we will prioritize for 118) as well as Alex, who was cut short at the end. A

Re: [OPSAWG] New Liaison Statement, "LS on O-RAN Transport Network Slicing Enhancement"

that there was interest from those in attendance, we will be conducting an adoption poll on our mailing list. Joe From: Liaison Statement Management Tool Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 at 10:33 To: Henk Birkholz , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , Lou Berger , Tianran Zhou , Vishnu Beeram Cc: Andrew Alston , Henk

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01

Absent implementation of the geofeed: attribute in a particular IRR database if so, it was intentional. perhaps s/IRR/Whois/? JMC: Yep. I see what you’re saying now. I was reading as RIR. I think IRR is fine, but perhaps it should be expanded like you do RIR earlier. > My biggest

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01

I’ve read the original draft and the diff mentioned below. Thanks for fixing the “until such time” thing as that read strangely to me. I think you’ve misspelled RIR as IRR in the diff. I appreciate this work progressing and the revisiting of the recommendations based on actual implementation.

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-03.txt

be cited as a justification for the assignment. Joe From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 11:04 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-03.txt Hi Joe, all, On the port number point, I’m afraid

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tls13-03.txt

Thanks for the update on this document. I’ve reviewed this new version in its entirety. To summarize: * TACACS+ TLS will use a dedicated “tacacss” TCP port number * Obfuscation is prohibited by TACACS+ TLS compliant clients/servers (within the tunnel) These were two issues I believe

Re: [OPSAWG] RFC 9408 on A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)

Indeed! Lots of back and forth on the administrivia side at the end, and the authors were prompt to respond and work with ADs and RFC-EDITOR. Nice work, all. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Tianran Zhou Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 at 02:19 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC

Re: [OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

NOT make any other changes. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 18:17 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data This work has been presented a few times now, and has had some on-list as well as at-mic discussion. Coming

[OPSAWG] IPR Poll: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hello, Brian and Paul. As authors of RFC7125 and named contributors on draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update (the bis document), I wanted to specifically poll to see if you know of any IPR associated with this new work: Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: RE: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update Re-, FWIW, std vs. info was raised at least twice: · Please look at “Which stream” in Slide 5 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/slides-115-opsawg-an-update-to-the-tcpcontrolbits

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

whereas 7125 is informational. As I go through the shepherd task list, I noticed this and as I consider both texts, I do think Informational might be more accurate for this bis, too. Joe From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 02:42 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 18:49 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update I have concluded the WG LC for this document. We got two directorate reviews in, and it sounds like the authors will make one more revision

[OPSAWG] IPR Poll: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hello, Brian and Paul. As authors of RFC7125 and named contributors on draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update (the bis document), I wanted to specifically poll to see if you know of any IPR associated with this new work: Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

of next week. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 18:13 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update Again, sorry for the delay. I’m just back to the office, and I’m catching up on things. I’ve pushed

Re: [OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

FYI, all authors/contributors have replied that they know of no IPR relevant to this document. Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 18:17 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data This work has been presented a few

[OPSAWG] POLL FOR IPR: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

Authors and contributors on the To: line, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft" or "Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft" If you are aware of

[OPSAWG] ADOPTION POLL: A Data Manifest for Contextualized Telemetry Data

This work has been presented a few times now, and has had some on-list as well as at-mic discussion. Coming out of 116, we said we’d bring the question of adoption to the list (minutes have been updated to reflect the conversation at the mic). As such, we are holding a three-ish-week call for

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

to see if anyone in the WG is interested? This is a good, short draft to cut one’s teeth on… Joe From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 16:01 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update Hello, WG. I hope everyone that traveled for 116 is back home

[OPSAWG] Minutes from 116

I have imported our 116 minutes into Data Tracker. A big thanks to Rob and Henk for recording things (and to anyone else that jumped in). In terms of actions, we have a WG LC for the 7125 (update bis). I’ll close that out in another thread. We closed the adoption call for DMLMO. Let us know

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-14.txt

Thanks, Rob! Joe From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 at 13:05 To: Kenneth Vaughn , opsawg@ietf.org , Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: i-d-annou...@ietf.org , Amanda Baber via RT Subject: RE: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-14.txt Hi Ken, Joe, OPSAWG, Thank

[OPSAWG] IPR POLL: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

(FYI, we’re going to get more consistent about doing this at adoption time, but this one was already adopted.) Authors and contributors, please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR that pertains to this work. Please state either: "No, I'm not aware of any IPR that

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

One other item, is anyone willing to be a shepherd for this document? Ideally, assuming all the IPFIX maintenance documents are adopted, that person can help shepherd all of them, but let’s start with this one for now. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, April

[OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update

Hello, WG. I hope everyone that traveled for 116 is back home and healthy. One of the items that came out of the 116 meeting was that this document is in decent shape for a WGLC. We wanted to move these IPFIX maintenance documents through the process rather quickly. One of the open questions

[OPSAWG] Upcoming IETF 116 opsawg meeting

Hello, WG. IETF 116 has kicked off with the Hackathon running in the Pacifico Yokohama. Our meeting is right around the corner on Tuesday, March 28 at 9:30 am JST. We look forward to seeing you in person or on Meetecho. Be sure to familiarize yourself with the attendee prep guide at

Re: [OPSAWG] OPSAWG meeting agenda

I want to put a fine point on the timing. Those last three topics (below the time exceeded line) will almost certainly not be presented. We’re currently at 115 minutes (as OPS Area wants 15). So, please all speakers keep to your time. And all speakers, please get your slides in by Friday of

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-09.txt

From: Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero) Date: Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:29 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org , Rob Wilton (rwilton) Cc: Sudhendu Kumar , Shwetha Bhandari , Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) , inventory-y...@ietf.org Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-palmero

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-13.txt

Given Randy’s explanation I’m fine to move forward. Joe From: Kenneth Vaughn Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 14:13 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: Randy Presuhn , Joe Clarke (jclarke) , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-13.txt Joe, The thread

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo-09.txt

Hello, authors. I’ve read through the new -09 and I have a few comments and questions. First, thanks for the effort here to abstract inventory and to show how this work can map to other inventory models. I’m not sure your change from license to entitlement tracks 100%. Your model for

Re: [OPSAWG] Update on T+/TLS

Thanks, heas. Will you be getting this next rev in before the cut-off on Monday? Joe From: heasley Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 at 13:42 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org , draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-tl...@ietf.org Subject: Re: Update on T+/TLS Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 07:34:21PM

[OPSAWG] Update on T+/TLS

Hello, authors. I’m not sure if you’re planning to request a speaking slot for IETF 116, but we would like to get an update of the current state of this work (and author’s thoughts on next steps). After publishing -01, there was a discussion on whether or not the obfuscation should be allowed

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-13.txt

Thanks for the review, Randy. I was concerned that the anchored object wasn’t of the type (thinking of other examples like ifType). Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Randy Presuhn Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 13:23 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) , Kenneth Vaughn , opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re

  1   2   3   4   5   >