[OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.

Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Alexey, On 17.04.18 13:35, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this

Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

As far as I can tell, the formal IPR disclosure with IPR terms was not filed until several days after that request. Thus, the WG can not have considered it in the light of the actual terms. When I asked one WG participant, he was quite surprised by the terms. Given the difficulty both Huawei an

Re: [OPSAWG] (Also Ben Campbell's and Alexey's) Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Eliot, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > Responding to Spencer, Ben, and Alexy (in order). > > On 16.04.18 21:09, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Yes > > When responding, please keep the s

Re: [OPSAWG] (Also Ben Campbell's and Alexey's) Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

On 17.04.18 14:44, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote: > Hi, Eliot, > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:43 AM, Eliot Lear > wrote: > > Responding to Spencer, Ben, and Alexy (in order). > > > On 16.04.18 21:09, Spencer Dawkins wrote: >> Spencer Dawkins has entered the foll

[OPSAWG] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt

Hi Alan, I hope that we can address your concerns. I think the main points that you raise the we (the authors) need to address are: 1) The security section 2) Reactivity of the authors 3) Change Tracking 1) The Security Section The starting point is that we know that TACACS+ needs enhancement

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs-10.txt

On Apr 17, 2018, at 10:15 AM, Douglas Gash (dcmgash) wrote: > Initially (up to around version 5) we included just a very simple security > section admitting that T+ was insecure and that the second document would > address the issue. This was deemed to be insufficient, and instead the WG > coll

Re: [OPSAWG] Ignas Bagdonas' No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with COMMENT)

Hi Ignas, On 17.04.18 16:08, Ignas Bagdonas wrote: > Ignas Bagdonas has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut

[OPSAWG] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://w

Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

Why is there IPR on this draft? Is this because of section 3? A section that is unnecessary and could be entirely removed without affecting the draft in any manner? Otherwise, I think it absolutely absurd that there is IPR on this document. ___ OPSAWG

Re: [OPSAWG] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Ben, Maybe we can swat two birds with one stone here, so to speak.  I think both EKR and I have been ruminating on the right text, and hopefully between the three of us, and perhaps others from the community we can zero in on what is needed.   On 17.04.18 17:31, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Benjam

Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

Noting that I am not the responsible AD for this The IPR had been disclosed shortly after the call for adoption, and so the WG was "aware" of it when the WGLC occurred -- however, it is very easy to forget that there is IPR during the WGLC, which is why RFC7602 says (emphasis mine): "The chai

Re: [OPSAWG] Rtgdir early review of draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-06

I think it worth the authors can discuss about this IPR in the WG before sending the draft to IESG. Tianran Sent from WeLink 发件人： heasley 收件人： li zhenqiangmailto:li_zhenqi...@hotmail.com>>;rtg-dirmailto:rtg-...@ietf.org>>;gen-artmailto:gen-...@ietf.org>>;draft

Re: [OPSAWG] regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community: IPR call

Thanks Warren very much for the suggestions from the AD side. Base on AD suggestions, I with the WG Chair role, would like to: 1. Let the authors to discuss the relation between the IPR and the draft, and get wider WG awareness. 2. Base on the above, see if the authors need to update the IPR dis