----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Falk" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 2:28 AM
> On 17 Nov 2019, at 22:48, tom petch wrote: > > > I am not sure which three you have in mind but suspect that it does > > not > > include > > draft-jholland-taps-api-yang > > > > Tom Petch > > Thanks for bringing this up, Tom. Note that TAPS hasn’t adopted this > draft as a working group item. We have some options. It could be > absorbed into one of the TAPS docs if a) folks thought it was in-scope > and sufficiently useful and b) it was mature enough. If not, we could > consider adopting it in TAPS as a new work item. I’d prefer that it > did not slow down completion of the 3 wg drafts. Thoughts? I am still not sure which three I-Ds you have in mind! The challenge with this I-D is that it may become dependent on common security modules which emerge from Netconf at some future date; that date could be a long way off. I suggested to Jake that he should stay with RYO security structures in which case I would see it as feasible to incorporate it in the timescale you suggest, but that does depend on it getting adequate review. Tom Petch > --aaron _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
