> 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.
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
> I’ve read the original draft and the diff mentioned below.
thanks. reviews are hard to find these days.
> I think you’ve misspelled RIR as IRR in the diff.
do you mean
Absent implementation of the geofeed: attribute in a particular IRR
database
if so, it was intentional. perhaps
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Randy Bush
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2023 at 14:37
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: Ops Area WG , draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-upd...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01
hi med,
>>> (4) Note sure we can mandate by spec how the
hi med,
>>> (4) Note sure we can mandate by spec how the data can be
>>> "consumed". I'm afraid the NEW sentence in the Sec Cons>> isn't
>>> useful. I would at least avoid the use of normative language
>>> there.
>>
>> you mean
>>
>> The consumer of geofeed data SHOULD fetch and
: [OPSAWG] draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01
>
> hi med,
>
> yay! much thanks for the review.
>
> > (1) As a complement to the discussion in the first para of the
> > Introduction, I would add a note that the source address does
> not
> > necessary point to the
hi med,
yay! much thanks for the review.
> (1) As a complement to the discussion in the first para of the
> Introduction, I would add a note that the source address does not
> necessary point to the user. You may add a pointer to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6269#autoid-14 when
di 27 juin 2023 18:53
> À : Ops Area WG
> Objet : [OPSAWG] draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01
>
> we have pushed draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01
>
> as the document says
>
> Changes from [RFC9092] include the following:
> * It is no longer assumed that a geofeed
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 2:52 AM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> we have pushed draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update/
> and asked to have a few minutes for it on the agenda next month.
>
> as the document says
>
> Changes from [RFC9092]
we have pushed draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update/
and asked to have a few minutes for it on the agenda next month.
as the document says
Changes from [RFC9092] include the following:
* It is no longer assumed that a geofeed
10 matches
Mail list logo
