thanks for review, paul
> #1 document track
>
> The document is Standards Track, and so are the docs is
> Obsoletes/Updates ([RFC2725] and [RFC4012]), but the document also
> claims "change control effectively lies in the operator community".
> Normally, that would mean the IETF publishes this
> The nit:
>
> 192.0.2.0/12 (in Section 3) isn’t what I consider a well-formed prefix, since
> the third octet has a set bit but isn’t under the mask. I would’ve said
> 192.0.0.0/12. (Or better still 192.0/12, but that form seems to be
> disfavored.)
nit? looks like a full grown bug to me.
Hi John,
Thanks for the review.
On 13/02/2024 21:36, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
In RFC 9092 you have,
Any particular inetnum: object MUST have, at most, one geofeed
reference, whether a remarks: or a proper geofeed: attribute when it
is implemented. If there is more
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: Yes
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 to
Dear Paul,
I implemented support for validating Geofeed signatures in OpenBSD's
RPKI implementation. Section 3 and 4 of your DISCUSS message relate to
this implementation work.
My implementation here is based on draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update:
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: Discuss
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 to
Hi authors, OPSAWG, WG chairs,
I appreciate that the timing isn’t ideal, but given that NMOP has just been
successfully chartered, and Incident Management is one of the current topics of
focus for that WG, then I think that it would be better for this document to be
discussed, and potentially
Hi Adrian, Alex,
hi all,
thanks for bringing that up. Clearly, there is some overlap not only in
name. Before starting to ask chairs and Rob (and I am sure Rob will have
an opinion here), I'd like to add something like a litmus test question
to the authors first - and then we can go from
Hi Alex, Adrian,
Let's check with Rob (I am on it)
Regards, Benoit
On 2/13/2024 10:20 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I am also as confused as Alex :-)
The OPSAWG charter says:
The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
the development and publication of RFCs dealing
I am also as confused as Alex :-)
The OPSAWG charter says:
The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
The NMOP charter
10 matches
Mail list logo
