Thank you, Joel! Haha
Sent from my mobile device > On Apr 3, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > s/with the need/without the need/ (don't you love typos that reverse > meaning?) > > Yours, > > Joel > >> On 4/3/2023 4:14 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: >> Hello Rob! >> >> Thank you for your offer of AD sponsorship. We also reviewed the idea of >> using errata and I think this was viewed as cleaner in that it would be >> readily apparent that the template text could be used with the need for >> explanation. I think (and correct if I left anything out), either works to >> achieve the objective for this since we’re working directly with the IEEE. >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> >> Sent from my mobile device >> >>>> On Apr 3, 2023, at 1:30 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm getting an out-of-office bounce from Glenn, so adding >>> trust...@ietf.org in the hope that either Kathleen or one of the other >>> trustees is give an answer more quickly. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rob >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) >>>> Sent: 03 April 2023 18:19 >>>> To: kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com; Deen, Glenn >>>> <glenn_d...@comcast.com> >>>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> >>>> Subject: draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext vs errata >>>> >>>> Hi Glenn, Kathleen, >>>> >>>> In addition to discussing draft-moriarty-yangsecuritytext in the NETMOD WG >>>> session on Friday (where the conclusion was to go the AD sponsored path), I >>>> also raised this issue with the IESG/IAB at the end of the IETF week, and >>>> someone had the suggestion of filling an errata against the YANG Author >>>> Guidelines (RFC 8407) to add the missing <BEGIN TEMPLATE TEXT> and <END >>>> TEMPLATE TEXT> markers to section 3.7.1 of RFC 8407. >>>> >>>> I know that you offered a RFC 8407-bis path, but did you also consider >>>> whether >>>> adding these markers as errata (which I would regard as being as in-scope >>>> and >>>> appropriate and could be marked as 'verified')? If this approach worked >>>> from >>>> your side, and if there are no objections from the authors or NETMOD, then >>>> I >>>> was wondering if that could be a more expedient path forward. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if errata would be sufficient from a trust perspective, >>>> otherwise, I'll go the AD sponsored route on Kathleen's draft. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Rob >> _______________________________________________ >> Trustees mailing list >> trust...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
