Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

The Last Call of what became RFC9092 2021-02-20 flagged the downrefs. The Shepherd Review thereof says = (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > If you can remind me after the AD review and perhaps put them in the > shepherd writeup (whoever the shepherd is) that would help me check > that they are listed correctly for this bis document. Done. > I have to confess that I'm not completely bought

Re: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-03.txt

Hi all, This version adds more narrative text, removes some default values from reusable groupings, completes the security section, and adds a new example to illustrate the concept of parent/child ACs. FWIW, the status of the overall AC effort can be seen at:

[OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-03.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit-03.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. Title: A Network YANG Data Model for Attachment Circuits Authors: Mohamed Boucadair Richard Roberts

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Hi Joe, They should be flagged at last-call, and normally I think that the tooling should spot these and flag these automatically. If you can remind me after the AD review and perhaps put them in the shepherd writeup (whoever the shepherd is) that would help me check that they are listed

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Rob, can you comment on this with respect to 9092 and the intent for this bis? Thanks. Joe On 11/30/23, 09:24, "Michael Richardson" wrote: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > I guess Rob has to call this out in the last call; please see RFC8067:

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > I guess Rob has to call this out in the last call; please see RFC8067: > For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative > reference to documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call > procedure will be issued, with the

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Hi Michael, I guess Rob has to call this out in the last call; please see RFC8067: For Standards Track or BCP documents requiring normative reference to documents of lower maturity, the normal IETF Last Call procedure will be issued, with the need for the downward reference

Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

Joe Clarke \(jclarke\) wrote: > The WG LC has concluded. Two of the directorate reviews came in, and > there were some other reviews from the WG (thank you!), which yielded a > -07. Michael has completed the shepherd write-up. With that, I will > move this doc to the IESG.