Hi Tianran, I have two concerns about this draft. First is the intended status of this document. It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational reference. I think the question here is really whether this draft should also be informational. As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented the other draft for this one to be implemented. And that means that really it should be a normative reference. But it would be a downref. To address this, I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.
In addition, I have another question. Is there interest or appetite for creating a standardized and more version of T+? If so, is the timing of a standardized YANG model appropriate? Eliot > On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi WG, > > This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the > comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02> > > > This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption. > If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an > indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be > willing to review and help the draft. > If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on > this topic, please say why.. > This poll will run until 22nd July. > > Regards, > Tianran & Joe > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
