Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Jeff Haas wrote: > > It should be noted that my contribution isn't intended to say "Juniper can > support this out the door". Rather, the intent is to start discussion of the > framework that addresses the problem space in a way that's more

Re: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

I have reviewed the draft and the IETF 101 presentation. I support the adoption of "draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements" as an OPSEC Working Group document Mehmet Adalier Antara Teknik LLC As discussed during the WG meeting in London IETF-101, let's have a call for adopting

Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

Barry, On Apr 17, 2018, at 3:21 PM, Barry Raveendran Greene > wrote: On Apr 18, 2018, at 01:48, Ron Bonica > wrote: Any comments, positive, negative or indifferent would be appreciated. It is difficult

Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 01:48, Ron Bonica wrote: > > Any comments, positive, negative or indifferent would be appreciated. It is > difficult to judge consensus in the face of silence. Since you asked. Feasible path was build around the capabilities of Juniper’s FIB

Re: [OPSEC] Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

I support the adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements as an OPSEC Working Group document, Oliver ___ OPSEC mailing list OPSEC@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec

Re: [OPSEC] Reminder: Call for WG adoption of draft-sriram-opsec-urpf-improvements

Folks, Any comments, positive, negative or indifferent would be appreciated. It is difficult to judge consensus in the face of silence. Ron From: OPSEC On Behalf Of