----- Original Message ----- From: "Bradner, Scott" <s...@harvard.edu> To: "Michael MacFaden" <m...@vmware.com> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:53 AM
> no exact number but zero is not enough > > any intelligent input would be helpful Scott This is probably unintelligent, but that is how I am! It is/was on my list of things to progress but it comes below e.g. draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp which has had issues outstanding with it for nearly a year, during which the call for adoption took about four months. That is where the time goes, checking, waiting, prodding, wondering, meandering off into appsawg whose calls for adoption - despite adopting a leaky bucket approach to adoption - seem even more fraught etc. So I have commented on this I-D in the past - I tend to read every mib module - but will not be doing so just yet. Perhaps when the shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp is complete, Tom Petch > Scott > > > On Jan 28, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Michael MacFaden <m...@vmware.com> wrote: > > > > Exactly how many folks need to speak up? > > > > We did have operator input on this work. > > We can ping them to to send email > > to the list... > > > > Mike > > > > > > On Jan 28, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Scott O. Bradner <s...@sobco.com> wrote: > > > >> which is too bad since I think the topic is a useful one > >> > >> but, as chairs, we are supposed to do things based on WG consensus > >> and if no one speaks up we have no way to know if there is consensus > >> one way or another > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
