>>> Ah, ok. For both RSC and RTA distinct properties are listed such as
>>> "applicable in long run", "usable", "complex code"; if no comparison is
>>> intended I'd just remove the two paragraphs about RTA & RSC.
>>
>> we seem to be at cross-purposes here. the point was not comparison at
>> all.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 at 02:29, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Ah, ok. For both RSC and RTA distinct properties are listed such as
> > "applicable in long run", "usable", "complex code"; if no comparison is
> > intended I'd just remove the two paragraphs about RTA & RSC.
>
> we seem to be at cross-purposes
> target="https://sobornost.net/~job/using_geofeed_authenticators.txt;>
>
> Example on how to use rpki-client to authenticate a signed
> Geofeed
>
>
>
>
thanks
>>> In section 5 it is unclear why RPKI-RTA and RFC 9323 are compared to
>>> each
Hello Daniele,
Oh, absolutely nothing with bad intent or complain. I apologize if the “there
is always something was wrong” phrase was too negative.
All models change, more if they aim for concepts that are hard to abstract, as
this one. I was just wondering if in general, as a policy,
Hi Camilo,
As you said there will always be something that "could have been done
better"...but we'll not request for the publication of a document/model of
low quality. Moreover both the documents we're considering for adoption
have been there for a while with a lot of experts working on both of
Hello group,
Daniele, thanks for the previous summary. Option 4 is a good compromise to
explore first.
One question for chairs (maybe even AD): are we aiming at standardising a base
model quickly and then accepting that something was wrong (there is always
something wrong) and doing a
Daniele & Qiufang,
I would like to request a slot to discuss the technical issues that need to be
addressed to evolve draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 to become the
network inventory base model, including how the overall network inventory model
can be modularized
If there is enough
Hi chairs/WG
As I didn’t answer the initial survey yet, I thought I was still on time. I
take the opportunity to base my answer on your analysis.
My preference is for the below option4, based more on the “simplicity and
focus”, with the starting approach of
Hi working group,
Thanks a lot for all the useful comments on the different drafts.
There seems to be a split of preferences between option 1 and option 3.
Given that the interinm meeting is soon (next week), we suggest to use it
to further discuss suggestions and concerns from the working group
