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

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 2:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i just pushed -08 with what i believe to be all fixes from comments on > -07. it may be time to push the button on this one. > Actually, Joe did that on 2023-11-29, and it is sitting in Rob Wilton's AD queue… W > randy > >

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

… and it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Rob, not me, is the responsible AD for OpsAWG. Assuming this gets WG and IETF consensus, I will recuse myself during the ballot. Also, I know of no IPR which needs to be disclosed. W On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 1:56 PM, Joe Clarke <

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

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 9:13 AM, Joe Clarke < jclarke=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > 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

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

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. W On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 9:20 AM, Joe Clarke wrote: > 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 >

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-15: 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.) Please refer

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-add-encrypted-dns-11: 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.) Please

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-15: 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.) Please refer

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-12: 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

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: 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

Re: [OPSAWG] Typo in opsawg charter

Roman (SecAD) pointed out off-list that we have a created process for exactly this sort of thing, and so I have proposed a new charter, and it can be approved by the IESG "without external review". Thanks Roman and David, W On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 10:51 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: >

Re: [OPSAWG] Typo in opsawg charter

On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 12:14 PM, Kazuhiro Somers-Harris < david.somers-harris=40rakuten@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hello, > > > > I found a typo in the opsawg charter > > > > Current text: > > > the following pieces of information would the foundation for the > document > > > > Proposed text:

[OPSAWG] Fwd: Reminder: Call for Papers: IAB workshop on Management Techniques in Encrypted Networks (M-TEN)

Hi there all, The IAB is organizing a workshop on Management Techniques in Encrypted Networks (M-TEN), and I figured that this might be interesting and relevant to many people in this WG. Please see below for details, W -- Forwarded message -- From: IAB Executive

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-11: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf-11: 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.) Please refer

[OPSAWG] Reminder: OPSAWG meeting and Daylight Saving Time

Hi there all, Just a reminder that DST happened in the USA this morning. Please remember to adjust your clocks and double check the schedule to make sure you know when the meeting starts... W -- Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs. After all, when the liturgy

[OPSAWG] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-10: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-vpn-common-10: 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.) Please refer

Re: [OPSAWG] New Liaison Statement, "LS on work progress on Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) network in SG13 (as of July 2021)"

) network in > SG13 (as of July 2021) > Submission Date: 2021-07-26 > URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1752/ > > From: shaba > To: Henk Birkholz ,Joe Clarke < > jcla...@cisco.com>,Tianran Zhou > Cc: Operations and Management Area Working

Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS++, please...

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:27 AM Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:18 AM Douglas Gash (dcmgash) > wrote: > >> Hi Warren, >> >> >> >> Yes, Thorsten, Andrej and I are actively engaged, and have been joined by >> a new team member (John

Re: [OPSAWG] [Last-Call] [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-06

[ Top-post ] Hi there all, I must admit that I've managed to lose the plot here -- I've read, and reread the threads, and am confused/think people may be talking past each other (or that I'm just not understanding...) I'm trying to understand what the actual issue / confusion is; perhaps a

Re: [OPSAWG] TACACS++, please...

he TACACS YANG document was discussed recently, and a bunch of ADs said "Oi! We largely approved the original document on the understanding that you'd fix this. Pay up now..." W > > > *From: *Warren Kumari > *Date: *Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 16:09 > *To: *opsawg , Thorst

[OPSAWG] TACACS++, please...

Hi there all, Last year we published "RFC8907 - The Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus (TACACS+) Protocol" This was a huge amount of work, and we are hugely grateful to the authors (and WG) for all of their hard work however, in the spirit of "no good deed goes

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds-04

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:59 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > Hi Randy, > > Thanks for the updates. > > Just waiting for confirmation from you/Warren that you are okay with my > doc status plan and then I'll send it to IETF LC. > Yup, completely... (and apologies for the delay, I've been

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR CALL: draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 4:47 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > > Authors, contributors, and WG members, as we are in WGLC for this > document, we want to solicit knowledge of any IPR that may pertain to > the draft-ietf-opsawg-finding-geofeeds work. > > Please state either, "no, I am not aware of

Re: [OPSAWG] Can we please adopt draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng?

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:28 AM Eliot Lear wrote: > > > > On 11 Nov 2020, at 16:07, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:34:25AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Hang on a moment. > > The PCAP community has been looking for a home to evolve the work. > > > We can decide on whether

[OPSAWG] Error discovered during AUTH48 processing of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs

Dear OpsAWG, During AUTH48 processing of RFC 8907 (draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs) we ran into something that was clearly an error: Original: As this information is not always subject to verification, it is recommended that this field is in policy evaluation. We are planning on replacing it

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:37 AM Roman Danyliw wrote: > > Hi Warren! > > > -Original Message- > > From: Warren Kumari > > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 4:21 PM > > To: Roman Danyliw > > Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-opsawg-...@ietf.org; OpsAWG-C

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Roman Danyliw wrote: > > Hi Warren! > > Thanks for the response and -11. More inline ... > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Warren Kumari > > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 2:35 PM > > To: Roman Danyliw > >

Re: [OPSAWG] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-12: (with COMMENT)

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 6:22 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [OPSAWG] opsawg-sdi was Re: example in tacacs yang was Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:03 AM tom petch wrote: > > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) > Sent: 18 June 2020 18:16 > To: tom petch > Cc: opsawg; draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-y...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: example in tacacs yang was Re: Shepherd review of > draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-yang > > On Jun 18, 2020,

Re: [OPSAWG] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:27 AM Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote: > > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines.

Re: [OPSAWG] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with COMMENT)

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:48 AM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote: > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:20 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: > > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-10: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines.

Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-08

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 11:28 AM Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote: > > Reviewer: Mirja Kühlewind > Review result: Ready > > This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's > ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written > primarily for

Re: [OPSAWG] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-08

On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:40 AM Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote: > > Editorial comment: I would recommend to use more generic company names > > than Sirius Cybernetics Corp and Acme Network Widgets to avoid that > > these names can be mistaken as

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-07

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 3:27 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thank you for this work. I found this document informative and both easy to > read and understand. I have a one question on this document and a few nits > listed below. > > > > My main question concerns this sentence

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-06.txt

On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:06 AM tom petch wrote: > > From: Warren Kumari > Sent: 06 April 2020 16:07 > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:36 AM tom petch wrote: > > > > Warren, > understanding better what you have in mind, I suggest a few changes to the > Abstract a

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-06.txt

able from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group > WG of the IETF. > > Title : Secure Device Install > Authors : Warren Kumari > C

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi status

On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM tom petch wrote: > > From: OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari > > Sent: 02 April 2020 23:24 > On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:17 PM Michael Richardson > wrote: > > > > > > I have posted a shepherd write-up. > > > > Some

Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi status

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 8:17 PM Michael Richardson wrote: > > > I have posted a shepherd write-up. > > Some suggestions that I have, one of which came from the idnits: > > 1) IPv6 example maybe? How would IPv6 work at all? >Can it work in a SLAAC-only environment? Good catch - the only IPv4

Re: [OPSAWG] opsawg - New Interim Meeting Request

This one was done earlier today (just mentioning in case we are talking about different meetings) W On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:22 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > Hi Warren, > > Please can you approve this one as well. > > Many thanks! > Rob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: OPSAWG

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs is approved.

, and the document is now ready for publication. Thank you all, Warren Kumari. [0]: I'm the one sending this as the document was reassigned to me: 2020-01-27 - Alissa Cooper - Shepherding AD changed to Warren "Ace" Kumari -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in

Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 9:28 AM Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > Hi Douglas, > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, at 8:28 PM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > > 5) KRB5 and KRB4 need normative references. > > TA> The KRB5 and KRB4 are not specifically used in this document, > > rather, there is one field with

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

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

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

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 (jc

Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

this shipped, W > > Best Regards, > Alexey > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 4:04 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Hey Alexey, > > > > I recently took over this document from Igans - it has been stuck in > > 'IESG Evaluation::AD Followup' for 266 days (at version -13)

Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi there Alexey, Just a note that Roman has cleared his DISCUSS (with the comment "Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT points; and finding a middle ground in this draft by documenting the as-is, but highlight the issues.") I'm sorry to be pushy, but the authors have done a lot of work on

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

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

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 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

Re: [OPSAWG] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi there Roman, I recently took over this document from Igans - it has been stuck in 'IESG Evaluation::AD Followup' for 266 days (at version -13). This is an informational document, describing an existing, and widely deployed protocol -- the intent was that, once this is published, there would

Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hey Alexey, I recently took over this document from Igans - it has been stuck in 'IESG Evaluation::AD Followup' for 266 days (at version -13). This is an informational document, describing an existing, and widely deployed protocol -- the intent was that, once this is published, there would be a

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

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

[OPSAWG] Progressing draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs

Hi there authors and WG, I'm now the responsible AD for this document. There is *significant* history here, and it is going to take substantial archeology to rebuild the state, etc. Authors, there are currently 2 open DISUCSS positions - these DISCUSSES were opened against version -13 of the

Re: [OPSAWG] Request for review: draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model

to be discussed? Should the authors ask for adoption / discussion here? If not, where should it be discussed? I'm uncomfortable progressing it without significant discussion, especially because it "Obsoletes: 6728 (if approved)". W On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 5:38 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > &

[OPSAWG] Request for review: draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data-yang-model

Hi there all, Back in Nov 2018 Ignas agreed to AD sponsor this document. Directorate reviews were requested in Nov 2019[0], and two OpsDir reviews were supplied, both with the status "OPSDIR Last Call Review: Not Ready (partially completed)" : 1:

Re: [OPSAWG] extend the call//RE: WG adoption call for draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework-09

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:14 AM Tianran Zhou wrote: > > Working Group, > > > > Thank you for all of your emails related to draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework. > > It seems there are a lot of interested people. I hope the authors will be > encouraged by that. > > But there were also some strong

Re: [OPSAWG] The future of MUD work

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: > > OpsAWG members and our Ops ADs, it was discussed in opsawg at IETF 105 that > with the amount of MUD work being proposed (and discussions happening outside > of opsawg) that perhaps MUD should evolve into its own WG. Some cons to

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-04

. > > -Qin Wu > -邮件原件- > 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Michael Richardson > 发送时间: 2019年6月19日 8:47 > 收件人: Warren Kumari > 抄送: opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs > 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-04 > > > Warren Kumar

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-04

Dear OpsAWG, Here is a link to the slidedeck from IETF104 to refresh your memory - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-opsawg-draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-01.pdf -- basically the entire document is summarized in 2 slides (slide 9, 10). If you'd prefer video --

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR poll on draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-04

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:57 AM Tianran Zhou wrote: > > Hi WG, > > Accompany with the adoption poll, this mail starts the IPR poll. > > Are you aware of any IPR that applies to draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-04? I confirm that I am not aware of any IPR that applies to draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi Thanks

Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes for 104

This was largely a “here is a document which we want to send through the ISE, does the WG want it instead / anyone have any objections?” He and I had decided that it was polite to check with the WG, even though we were fairly sure the WG would not want it... W On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 10:25 AM

[OPSAWG] "Secure Device Install" - draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi

Hi all, So, I'd like to discuss this document: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-opsawg-sdi-03 (I've had it kicking around since 2016, but haven't had time to push it). It is a very simple addition to the "normal" netboot process which many devices do, which allows "secure" installing of

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 103 Operations and Management AD Office Hours - Monday Afternoon Session II

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:48 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi all, > > Please come to talk to us about any Ops WG, Ops Area, Ops related > documents, new > proposals, or about any other IETF-related business. > > Also, feel free to come provide feedback, ask for updates,

[OPSAWG] IETF 103 Operations and Management AD Office Hours - Monday Afternoon Session II

Hi all, Please come to talk to us about any Ops WG, Ops Area, Ops related documents, new proposals, or about any other IETF-related business. Also, feel free to come provide feedback, ask for updates, etc. An advanced notification would be appreciated, so that we can schedule the different

Re: [OPSAWG] IETF 102 Operations and Management AD Office Hours

[ -IETF-Discuss for clutter ] On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 3:59 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > Hi all, > > As always, we will be holding Operations and Management AD Office Hours at > IETF 102 in Montreal. > > It is still early days, and so the time and room are still TBD, but I &

[OPSAWG] IETF 102 Operations and Management AD Office Hours

Hi all, As always, we will be holding Operations and Management AD Office Hours at IETF 102 in Montreal. It is still early days, and so the time and room are still TBD, but I wanted to mention it early, so people can start preparing. I'll send out a new note once we have a room and slot. Please

Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

Noting that I am not the responsible AD for this The IPR had been disclosed shortly after the call for adoption, and so the WG was "aware" of it when the WGLC occurred -- however, it is very easy to forget that there is IPR during the WGLC, which is why RFC7602 says (emphasis mine): "The

Re: [OPSAWG] AD Review of " A YANG Module for Network Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation (NPT)" draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-13

On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:35 AM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Warren, > > Thank you for the review. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine- >> De : Warren Kumari [mailto:war...@kumari.net] >>

[OPSAWG] AD Review of " A YANG Module for Network Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation (NPT)" draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-13

AD Review of " A YANG Module for Network Address Translation (NAT) and Network Prefix Translation (NPT)" draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-13 Note: I started while I was the Responsible AD for OpsAWG; Igans has taken this over, but these may still be helpful. --- Hi there, Apologies for how long

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

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:12 AM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > Hi Warren, > > I am on travel today, but I expect to read this today or Friday. Can you > give me until Saturday? > Sure. W > Thanks, > -Ekr > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM, War

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

AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM

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

On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF >> <spencerdawkins.i...@gmail.com> wro

[OPSAWG] Second LC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud/ This document had a (successful) IETF LC on 2017-10-24. The authors had asked me to hold it after the LC completed as it has a dependency on parts of draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model. It is now stable, but there have been sufficient changes

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

en >> >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 a

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

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > 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

[OPSAWG] IETF 101 Operations and Management AD Office Hours

Dear all, When: 15:50-17:20 Monday Afternoon session II Where: TBD - this will shortly be posted in the Agenda. Please come to talk to us on any WG or OPS area items, about new proposals, or about any other IETF-related business. Also, come and meet Ignas, who will be taking over the

[OPSAWG] Call for OpsArea agenda requests.

Dear OpsArea, Once again we will be holding a joint OpsArea session with the OpsAWG meeting ( 13:30-15:30 Monday Afternoon session I) Please let us (ops-...@ietf.org) know if you have any agenda items. W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first

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

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > 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

Re: [OPSAWG] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-10

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > I'm not the responsible AD for draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang but let me share > my view from a YANG point of view. > Do we really believe that the intended status of Standards Track of > Experimental will

[OPSAWG] Reminder to provide feedback on draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt

Hi all, Just a reminder that this document was discussed in the OpsAWG / OpsArea meeting and a large number of people said that they would read and provide feedback on this document (hopefully even on the plane back to $origin) -- now would be a good time to provide feedback on the IETF LC if you

Re: [OPSAWG] AD review of: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > [this time to the wg and chairs] > > Warren, > > Thanks for your review, and I'm sorry to hear of your illness. Thanks; antibiotics are a wonderful invention, finally on the mend... > > > On 10

[OPSAWG] AD review of: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud.

First, sorry for the delay in reviewing this -- I'm recovering from pneumonia and so it took longer than it should have. I do have a few comments that I’d like addressed before I start IETF LC — addressing these now will avoid issues later in the process. I believe that all my comments are

Re: [OPSAWG] Last Call: (Service Models Explained) to Informational RFC

Apologies everyone, I accidentally hit the wrong button in the datatracker. This document has already successfully passed IETF LC (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/FXMc81LranPhaqpS_rIOE6Q8nbA), I am not restarting it. Sorry again for the noise / mis-click. W On Wed, Sep 27,

[OPSAWG] Fwd: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained

Apologies, I forgot to CC the WG. I'll also be asking Benoit to give it the once over, as he is much more familiar with this topic. W -- Forwarded message -- From: Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> Date: Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 8:43 PM Subject: AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-s

[OPSAWG] Looking for a reviewer for draft-daveor-cgn-logging

Hi there all, Nevil Brownlee (the Independent Submissions Editor) is looking for a few reviewers for the "Approaches to Address the Availability of Information in Criminal Investigations Involving Large-Scale IP Address Sharing Technologies" ( draft-daveor-cgn-logging ) document. The abstract

Re: [OPSAWG] Serious concerns with draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-06

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:07 PM Scott O. Bradner wrote: > > > On May 9, 2017, at 1:41 PM, Alan DeKok > wrote: > > > > I've taken a look at the latest draft, and have some serious concerns. > > > > Specifically, large chunks of the Security

Re: [OPSAWG] IPR poll on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-05

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:06 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > > > On 3/15/17 2:24 AM, Tianran Zhou wrote: >> Dear WG Members, >> >> We are currently preparing draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-05 for working group last >> call. Here is an IPR poll prior to the wglc. >> >> Are you aware of any IPR

[OPSAWG] New OpsAWG chair volunteers...

Hi all, I will be stepping down as OpsAWG chair, and am looking for a replacement. As you have probably seen, this is (generally) a very low drama, low stress working group. If you are interested / willing, please let me know (off-list). Of course, if you have any questions, I'm happy to chat,

Re: [OPSAWG] MUD status (Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-03.txt)

Dear WG, There has been significant interest and support each time these documents have been presented -- but unfortunately that enthusiasm hasn't converted into much review and feedback. Please read and provide Eliot with comments... W On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:14 AM Eliot Lear

[OPSAWG] Draft cutt-off is Monday...

Just a reminder that the last day you can submit a document before Seoul is: 2016-10-31 (Monday): Internet Draft submission cut-off (for all drafts, including -00) by UTC 23:59, upload using IETF ID Submission Tool. W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea

Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

im (we all know how to read!) On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > Hi all, > > So, reviving this thread... > > I think that there is sufficient merit to request early allocations > according to RFC7120 criteria. > Please note that if we

Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

y > inform IANA that a deprecated code point can be completely > de-allocated (i.e., made available for new allocations) at any time > after it has been deprecated. > > > Regards, > Tianran > >> -Original Message- >> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper

Re: [OPSAWG] IANA Customer Feedback

Dear OpsAWG, >From what I understand (very little in this case!), this was not really supposed to go to IETF lists, it was intended to go directly to document authors instead... or something. This understanding seems to be supported by the fact that the "surveynumber=69480 " seems to be a unique

Re: [OPSAWG] WG consensus call for the IANA early assignment //RE: Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

6 at 2:36 PM > To: Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net>, Zhoutianran <zhoutian...@huawei.com>, > Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> > Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org" > <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: Re:

Re: [OPSAWG] Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

eded IPR disclosures have been made... W > Eliot > > On 8/16/16 9:33 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: > > Dear OpsAWG, > > > > We see sufficient interest to go play in the MUD. > > > > Authors, please resubmit the document named draft-ietf-opsawg-mud (or > > somethi

Re: [OPSAWG] Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

Dear OpsAWG, We see sufficient interest to go play in the MUD. Authors, please resubmit the document named draft-ietf-opsawg-mud (or something similar, this ain't yer first rodeo). While I have folks attention -- please remember to also review the TACACS+ document - we wish to WGLC it soon. W

Re: [OPSAWG] Adoption poll for draft-lear-ietf-netmod-mud-04

Hi all, Just a reminder that this call for adoption is still ongoing, and closes on August 16th. So far we see strong support for adoption, but would welcome more[0]. W [0]: Partly so we have a pool of victims^w volunteers to ask for review. On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:14 AM, Zhoutianran

Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel

, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > Dear OpsAWG WG, > > This begins a WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel - this WGLC > ends on June 29th. > > This is the second WGLC for this document - it initially successfully > passed WGLC in August 2

[OPSAWG] Draft minutes from Berlin

Hi, Draft minutes from Berlin has been posted - please let us know if you have any corrections. https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-opsawg W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in

Re: [OPSAWG] auto attachment presentation

I've posted these. Thanks Dan (and everyone), W On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > > > Please find attached an updated auto-attach presentations > > > > - Slides in the right order (!) > > - Links to the open source

Re: [OPSAWG] Comments about draft-lapukhov-dataplane-probe

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Petr Lapukhov wrote: > Tal, thanks for the feedback! I will likely to take a stab at this next > week, though I think we are in lock-down before IETF already. Nope, you still have a few days: 2016-07-08 (Friday): Internet Draft submission cut-off

Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda requests

... and a reminder that we have open agenda time. W On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote: > Dear OpsAWG, > > We have requested a slot for the joint OpsAWG / OpsArea meeting in Berlin. > > Please send over requests for agenda time. >

  1   2   >