1) I've already supported adoption. 2)
> (2) Up to the point where an AD or other higher power might have objections, > i really would like to see this document marked as an Update to RFC8366 so > that we have a breadcrump trail from RFC8366 to this document (personally > i am never quite sure what the strict requirements are for such a marking). The draft says: "This document does not extend the YANG definition of [RFC8366] at all, but accepts that other efforts such as [I-D.richardson-anima-voucher-delegation], [I-D.friel-anima-brski-cloud], and [I-D.ietf-anima-brski-async-enroll] do." I think that's very hard to interpret as "updates" since it explicitly says "does not extend". If you think this is unsatisfactory, support https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/ Brian _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
