On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:45 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
> A bit late, but we did get some good review from Gen Art and some opsawg
> members. This yielded a rev 03 and will certainly lead to an 04. With
> that, we will push this draft forward to the IESG after all pending
> comments are
Apologies for the delay in responding, I was traveling and then got
sidetracked into other things.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 4:40 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2020, at 15:41, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> wrote:
>
>
> As a
A bit late, but we did get some good review from Gen Art and some opsawg
members. This yielded a rev 03 and will certainly lead to an 04. With that,
we will push this draft forward to the IESG after all pending comments are
addressed.
Who in opsawg would be interested in serving as shepherd
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari
Sent: 09 February 2020 21:49
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Cc: opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02
Dear OpsAWG,
As there has been no feedback, I have to assume that you think
in the 1990s but nothing
current.
Tom Petch
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari
Sent: 09 February 2020 21:49
To: Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Cc: opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02
Dear OpsAWG
On Feb 11, 2020, at 15:41, Warren Kumari
mailto:war...@kumari.net>> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke)
mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
As a contributor, I think this document is mostly ready (and as previously
stated, I like and support the work). That said,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 10:19 AM Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>
> As a contributor, I think this document is mostly ready (and as previously
> stated, I like and support the work). That said, after another read I found
> a few spelling nits and some comments:
>
> In Section 2, you paint the
As a contributor, I think this document is mostly ready (and as previously
stated, I like and support the work). That said, after another read I found a
few spelling nits and some comments:
In Section 2, you paint the picture of a scenario, but “break the fourth wall”
to explain what is
With a week left, I was hoping for more discussion. This draft is relatively
short (14 pages) and very readable. I encourage members to read through it
again.
Thanks.
Joe
> On Feb 4, 2020, at 12:41, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>
> With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to
Dear OpsAWG,
As there has been no feedback, I have to assume that you think that
this document is **absolutely** perfect, and contains nothing unclear,
inaccurate or confusing. Franky, this surprises me - I'd thought that
the bit about the penguins was somewhat vague...
W
(Yes, this is just a
Thank you, Joe.
As an author, I support adoption and am not aware of any IPR related to this
draft.
C
___
Colin Doyle
Juniper Networks | Senior Systems Engineer
C. 503.810.2129 | E. cdo...@juniper.net
On 2/4/20, 9:41 AM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)"
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:41 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
>
> With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached
> stability. There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this
> draft expressed in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately.
>
> This email
With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached stability.
There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this draft expressed
in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately.
This email serves as a two-week start of a WG LC for this document. Please
13 matches
Mail list logo
