[OPSAWG] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-09

Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins Review result: Ready This update is quite clear and readable. I'd say it's ready with no further changes. I would feel a failure as an ARTART reviewer if I didn't thank the authors and working group for updating the HTTPS reference from [RFC2818] to [RFC9110

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

Jie > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:j...@joelhalpern.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 12:03 AM > >> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF ; Stewart > >> Bryant > >> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@iet

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Stewart, On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:07 AM Stewart Bryant wrote: > > > On 30/11/2018 19:23, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > > This is Mirja's comment, but ... > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind > wrote: > >> Mirja Kühlewind has ente

Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

This is Mirja's comment, but ... On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind wrote: > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email

Re: [OPSAWG] (Also Ben Campbell's and Alexey's) Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Eliot, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > Responding to Spencer, Ben, and Alexy (in order). > > On 16.04.18 21:09, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20:

[OPSAWG] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

I haven't balloted yet, and this is EKR's ballot thread, but one point is worth bringing up here ... On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Hi Eliot, > > Thanks for continuing the conversation. My question is how this fits into > the system as a whole. > > ISTM

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Benoit, On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > The way I see it, we're going to fix comments forever. > Right. But my concern was that the text that we're reading for an up/down vote can change after we read it, so I should be tracking the proposed text

Re: [OPSAWG] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

This may not be my week, when it comes to comprehension. At least, I'm 0 for 2 so far today. Are we still tuning text in this draft? https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/iesg-ballots/ says that the alternate balloting procedure is an up/down vote - we either agree to publish, or agree to send

Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: (with COMMENT)

Following up on an obscure point ... On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:40 PM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-17: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >

[OPSAWG] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01: (with COMMENT)

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mibs-to-ieee80231-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however