Dear OPSAWG,
I support the progress of this document.
I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder if this
draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is “incident management” in the
charter.
Some of the related work such as
I support to adopt this document as WG draft.
I also checked the grammar of the YANG model, it is perfect, but the tree
diagram is a bit inconsistent with the YANG model.
so I ran the pyang 2.6 on the YANG model, the tree diagram is as follows for
your reference:
module: ietf-incident
+--ro
This document addresses the O aspect of network services. I support the
adoption of this draft.
Aihua
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 10:44 AM Henk Birkholz
wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
> >
>
I support the adoption of this document
Italo
> -Original Message-
> From: Henk Birkholz
> Sent: giovedì 8 febbraio 2024 16:44
> To: OPSAWG
> Subject: [OPSAWG] WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-
> management-04
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for
The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Operational
Considerations for use of DNS in IoT devices'
as Best Current
Practice
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area
Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Authorized
update to MUD URLs'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action.
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update-10: 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
Hi Michael,
The TD;LR is I think that your latest changes are good and I’ll send -12 to
IETF LC.
When checking the changes, diff, 3 minor nits:
1. “a IP address literal in the URL” to “an IP …
1. I still think “inprotocol” should be something else, perhaps “within the
protocol”.
I had to go full on gmail/html to actually see what your comments were.
Readers in the archive might be lost, and I hope my reply highlights all of
your comments.
Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>> Perhaps change: This is contrasted with ... => This contrasts this
>> with an alternative
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the updates.
Changes look good, and I’ll initiated IETF LC on -09, but there are a couple of
remaining nits, please see inline. below. You can either just fix them in your
editors copy or post a new revision if you prefer, either works.
Anyway, this completes my AD
10 matches
Mail list logo
