Thanks Joel. I think this is much better than just adopting one
set of documents (or one approach) in the OPSAWG. As I mentioned
in the WG session Seoul, there are multiple efforts and approaches
in this space and various of them have indeed been presented in
a number of WG and/or RG sessions.
- Where will you send the proposed charter for discussion?
Both OPS and RTG area mailing lists (or maybe OPSAWG instead of OPS)?
- Are you gonna do a call for volunteers to co-chair the WG?
- It sounds like you are not gonna do a BOF first, right?
that is OK with me.
Thanks,
Bert
On 19/01/2017 16:28, joel jaeggli wrote:
Hi,
I thought I would try and wrap this up since we're a bit over a month
since we put out the initial call after Seoul.
By my observation there have been a number of favorable expressions of
interest in pursuing this work both in OPS and elsewhere in the Routing
area. That said I think one of the conclusions the IESG has taken from
this is that In-band OAM is a cros- area activity and there is strong
interest or perhaps need to have input and review in the Routing area.
We have been exploring chartering this activity, which if it occurs
renders the question of adoption here moot.
The Ops and Routing chairs are trying to close the loop here, but I
expect that a proposed charter will be forthcoming shortly and we should
be able to progress this work.
The statements of support and enthusiasm for pursuing it has been useful
in gauging what to do with this proposal.
Thanks
joel
On 12/6/16 10:36 PM, Zhoutianran wrote:
Hi All,
In Seoul, we got enough interest on the In Situ OAM work and positive
response on related drafts.
So this email starts a formal poll for adoption the following I-Ds.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-requirements-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-inband-oam-data-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brockners-proof-of-transit-02.txt
To be efficient, we have the poll for three I-Ds in one thread. But
you can give your opinion on each of them. And the result is per I-D.
The question is:
Do you think that the WG should adopt all or some of these drafts?
It would be helpful if you could indicate whether you have read the
drafts. If "yes", would you like to review the drafts and help to
improve the drafts? If "no", it is important that you provide reasons.
This poll will last for two weeks, ending on Tuesday, December 20.
Thanks,
Tianran & Warren
_______________________________________________
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
