Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-05

2023-02-24 Thread Henk Birkholz
Dear OPSAWG members, as all WGLC comments are addressed, the chairs think there is now consensus in the WG regarding this I-D and that it is ready to be submitted to IESG for publication - after Shepard write-up. For the OPSAWG co-chairs, Henk On 09.12.22 17:20, Henk Birkholz wrote: Dear

Re: [OPSAWG]  WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-05

2023-02-24 Thread Henk Birkholz
Dear OPSAWG members, after some consideration, the chairs think there is enough consensus in the WG regarding this I-D and that it is ready to be submitted to IESG for publication - after Shepard write-up. For the OPSAWG co-chairs, Henk On 09.12.22 17:20, Henk Birkholz wrote: Dear OPSAWG

[OPSAWG] Request Call for Adoption: DMLMO draft

2023-02-24 Thread Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
Dear Chairs, The authors for the DMLMO draft would like to go ahead and request Call for Adoption for the draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo/ Please note that DMLMO(from v09) can actually rely to any inventory YANG data model that need to be considered. Many

Re: [OPSAWG] New Version Notification for draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-01.txt

2023-02-24 Thread Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
Hi Bo, Answering your questions here: 1) Identities for offer-type-t can be extended, those might not be limited to the identities listed in the draft. Please recall that assets related to hardware, software, applications, or services. An asset can be physical or virtual. Note: There is a good

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update: bis vs. update

2023-02-24 Thread mohamed.boucadair
Hi all, One of the open questions raised in IETF#115 (3rd sub-bullet of bullet#2 in Slide#5 of [1]) is whether we publish this I-D as a bis, especially that each of the original RFC and the update draft have almost the same page count. I personally think it is much more cleaner to go for a bis

[OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update: std vs. Info

2023-02-24 Thread mohamed.boucadair
Hi all, One of the open questions raised in IETF#115 (2nd sub-bullet of bullet#2 in Slide#5 of [1]) is whether we publish this text as Informational (same as RFC7125) or we go for Standard Tacks (which makes more sense given the normative text and also because the spec relates to interop).

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-01.txt

2023-02-24 Thread mohamed.boucadair
Hi all, This version addresses a comment raised by Thomas about observability (more details at: https://github.com/boucadair/-ipfix-rfc7125-update/issues/1). Thomas, please check and let me know if any change is still needed. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : OPSAWG

[OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc7125-update-01.txt

2023-02-24 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG of the IETF. Title : An Update to the tcpControlBits IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information