internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09
The only change is the addition of an empty IANA Considerations section as
requested by the shepherd write up.
--
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09.txt is now available.
It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG)
WG of the IETF.
Title: Authorized update to MUD URLs
Authors: Michael Richardson
Wei Pan
Eliot Lear
Name:
Many thanks, Med, for the review and useful suggestions!
I seem to prefer path-coupled to path-congruent as well.
I also like the packet-embedded or user-packet-embedded alternatives, as
they do seem more clear than in-packet.
WG - Any other thoughts on this?
Adrian, what do you think?
Hi Carlos, Adrian, all,
Thank you for editing this document. This is really useful.
Alternate terms to consider for the path-congruent terms are
path-coupled/path-decoupled OAM (inspired from RFC4080).
When editing RFC 9451, I wish I had terms for:
* "OAM packet that exclusively includes
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-08.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG
of the IETF.
Title: Extended TCP Options and IPv6 Extension Headers IPFIX Information
Elements
Authors: Mohamed Boucadair
Re-,
What about adding the following under "Operational Considerations":
NEW:
Implementations of tcpSharedOptionExID16 and tcpSharedOptionExID32 IEs are
assumed to be provided with a list of valid Experiment IDs {{IANA-TCP-EXIDs}}.
How that list is maintained is implementation-specific. Absent
Dear authors and contributors,
as a part of the adoption process, the chairs would also like to issue a
first IPR call on the content of adoption candidates (there will also be
a second IPR call after successful WGLC).
Please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
Hi all,
I support adopting this document.
The authors kindly addressed many of my comments in -02.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : OPSAWG De la part de Henk Birkholz
> Envoyé : mercredi 17 janvier 2024 13:52
> À : OPSAWG
> Objet : [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for
On 1/17/2024 3:34 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
[Med] This can be part of regular code updates. Please note that this
is not unusual in ipfix (see for example ipv4Options, natevent, etc.
in https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix/ipfix.xhtml which depend on
an IANA registry).
Ok; do
Hi,
As I think I already had the opportunity to express in past meetings, this
proposal is of high interest for service providers. I support adoption.
Be goode,
--
“Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno”
Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
https://www.linkedin.com/dr2lopez/
e-mail:
Dear OPSAWG,
I read the document and think it is very valuable for network operators. I like
that it is defined as information module so later we can see how this would be
applicable in IPFIX and YANG.
Best wishes
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: OPSAWG On Behalf Of Henk
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html
ending on Wednesday, January 31st.
As a reminder, this I-D describes an information model in support of
automated network mitigation on what
Hi Authors, OPSAWG,
Please see my AD review comments for draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-08. My
focus was on the diff between the latest draft and RFC 9092. I only have some
relatively minor comments.
Minor level comments:
(1) p 4, sec 3. inetnum: Class
Any particular inetnum:
Hi Ebben,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Ebben Aries
> Envoyé : lundi 15 janvier 2024 16:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> Cc : yang-doct...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-
> circuit@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re:
Hi Joe,
The very short introduction to SAFE/UNSAFE is there to help reader digest the
difference between EXP and UEXP introduced right after and understand the
rationale for having two IPFIX IEs.
Of course, the authoritative reference for implementers is the TSVWG base spec;
the exact section
Hi Wes,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Wesley Eddy
Envoyé : mardi 16 janvier 2024 21:21
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; tsv-...@ietf.org
Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org
Objet : Re: Tsvart early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-tcpo-v6eh-05
On
16 matches
Mail list logo
