as is, and
resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 26.06.24 11:58, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01
ending on Saturday, July 6th. That is a little bit
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-01
ending on Saturday, July 6th. That is a little bit of an odd duration,
but the I-D is crisp and concise and if there is rough consensus after
-opsawg-oam-characterization-00=draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-01=--html> addresses all discussion thus far as part of the adoption call.
Thanks,
Carlos.
On May 10, 2024, at 8:42 AM, Henk Birkholz
wrote:
Hi Carlos,
hi Adrian,
please do it the other way around ☺️
The chairs ask t
FYI, I found the I-D Action notif. My intricate web of shiny sieve
filters is to blame (which unfortunately inhibits me from shifting blame
from me to mailman anymore. Mailman is fine).
On 10.05.24 15:03, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Oh I see, DT tells me it is at -05 already.
Well
Original Message-
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent: 10 May 2024 13:43
To: Carlos Pignataro ; adr...@olddog.co.uk
Cc: OPSAWG
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: WG Adoption Call for
draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03
Hi Carlos,
hi Adrian,
please do it the other way around ☺️
The chairs ask
pro-active
alignment", making changes as requested by the WG, and paying
attention to any sources of similar terminology pointed out to us.
Ciao,
Adrian
-Original Message-
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent: 08 May 2024 08:50
To: OPSAWG mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
his naming exercise can be resolved
quickly.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 10.04.24 13:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html
ending on Thu
Dear authors and contributors,
as a part of the adoption process, the chairs would also like to issue a
first IPR call on the content of adoption candidates (there will also be
a second IPR call after successful WGLC).
Please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03.html
ending on Thursday, May 2nd.
As a reminder, this I-D summarizes how the term "Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance"
On 08.02.24 16:44, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html
ending on Thursday, February 22nd.
As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management
We'll conclude the WG Adoption Call in OPSAWG as planned and the result
will be one input to the NMOP chairs. Another input, of course, is the
notion of that "yet another set of terminology" would require
"collaboration and cooperation being clearly spelled out" to ensure
consistency.
The
each other and
give us direction on this as a matter of some urgency.
Thanks,
Adrian
PS. Unlike Alex, I don’t think the solution is to discuss the document
in two WGs: that usually leads to interesting challenges
*From:*OPSAWG *On Behalf Of *Alex Huang Feng
*Sent:* 13 February 2024 05:25
Dear authors and contributors,
as a part of the adoption process, the chairs would also like to issue a
first IPR call on the content of adoption candidates (there will also be
a second IPR call after successful WGLC).
Please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html
ending on Thursday, February 22nd.
As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management.
Incidents in this context
rename the I-D to draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel-00,
keeping the content as is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 17.01.24 13:51, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans
Henk Birkholz has requested publication of
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-09 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
OPSAWG working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls
Dear authors and contributors,
as a part of the adoption process, the chairs would also like to issue a
first IPR call on the content of adoption candidates (there will also be
a second IPR call after successful WGLC).
Please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-opsawg-evans-discardmodel-02.html
ending on Wednesday, January 31st.
As a reminder, this I-D describes an information model in support of
automated network mitigation on what
Henk Birkholz has requested publication of
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-08 as Best Current Practice on
behalf of the OPSAWG working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations
Dear authors and contributors,
please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
that pertains to draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-06.
State either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft."
If
Dear authors and contributors,
please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
that pertains to draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-08.
State either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this
Henk Birkholz has requested publication of draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-12 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the OPSAWG working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls/
___
OPSAWG mailing
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
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
Status of
Standards Track, keeping the content as is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 08.12.22 21:34, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05
, Michael Tuexen wrote:
On 8. Dec 2022, at 21:34, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-opsawg
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a four week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-05.html
ending on Friday, January 6th 2023.
Several reviews of this document were submitted. The most recent one
from the
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a four week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-05.html
ending on Friday, January 6th 2023.
This internet draft updates RFC8520. The authors believe the
Internet-Draft is ready
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a Working Group Adoption call for a bundle of two documents:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-05.html
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-richardson-opsawg-pcaplinktype-01.html
ending on Monday, December 30th.
As a recap: we
Henk Birkholz has requested publication of draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-12 as
Proposed Standard on behalf of the OPSAWG working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/
___
OPSAWG
Dear OPSAWG members,
reading no objections, we'll start the submission to IESG.
Thanks again to Eliot and Scott for driving the work, to Qin as the
document shepherd and to all contributors and reviewers.
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 10.10.22 09:46, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members
On 12.10.22 13:39, tom petch wrote:
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 06 October 2022 13:26
Dear authors and contributors,
thank you for your hard work. As it seems that all existing issues have
been resolve, we'll move the I-D to write-up in the datatracker.
Also, thanks Thomas Fossati
Dear OPSAWG members,
the chairs think consensus on this I-D is established and that it is
ready to be submitted to IESG for publication.
We'll let that assessment simmer here on the list for a few days before
pushing the buttons, checking for pending comments from ADs and the list.
For
thanks to Qin for stepping up as shepherd!
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.05.22 18:22, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
as a reminder, today ends the WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-05.
This is your last chance to add your comments to the list or an
assessment of whether
Dear authors and contributors,
thank you for your hard work. As it seems that all existing issues have
been resolve, we'll move the I-D to write-up in the datatracker.
Also, thanks Thomas Fossati for stepping up as shepherd!
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 29.09.22 10:27, Henk Birkholz
Dear OPSAWG members,
I'd like to highlight the opportunity to become a shepherd for this I-D.
If you'd like to get more involved in the IETF community, becoming a
document shepherd is good way to get first hands-on experience. The
chairs are happy to help, will support newcomers, and provide
Dear authors and contributors,
as a reminder: please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware
of any IPR that pertains to draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.
State either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft."
, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html
ending on Thursday, September 28th.
The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the
chairs agree
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html
ending on Thursday, September 28th.
The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the
chairs agree. The draft has
Hi Eliot,
I think Tom was referring to this link:
https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c081870_ISO_IEC_5962_2021(E).zip
Please excuse my perpetual latency.
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 13.09.22 12:26, Eliot Lear wrote:
The only change from this version is the pointer to a
Thanks Eliot,
I've reviewed the changes and can confirm that the highlighted comments
are addressed adequately.
@OPSAWG: please comment, if you discover any open issues. While the
secdir review is still in progress, we can make use of that time.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 01.09.22
the deadline in mind.
For the OPAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 15.04.22 02:30, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
please be aware that I introduced an inconsistency in the recent WGLC
announcement.
It is actually a period of *three weeks* to get your feedback in. I
extended the time frame from two
Dear authors and contributors,
please respond on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any IPR
that pertains to draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-05.
State either:
"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft."
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft."
If you are
.
For the OPAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 15.04.22 02:30, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
please be aware that I introduced an inconsistency in the recent WGLC
announcement.
It is actually a period of *three weeks* to get your feedback in. I
extended the time frame from two weeks due
for pointing that out.
Viele Grüße & a enjoy a inspiring Easter time,
Henk
On 12.04.22 13:15, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a three week period for a Working Group Last Call of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/05/
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email starts a three week period for a Working Group Last Call of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access/05/
ending on Wednesday, April 27th.
The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC. The draft
has been discussed at
Hi all,
as an update to my last reply:
ISO 5962:2021 has been made a Publicly Available Standard by ISO's ITTF.
https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c081870_ISO_IEC_5962_2021(E).zip
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:56, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Hi all,
afaik, SPDX 2.2.1
this work in OPSAWG.
My recommendation to the authors is to discuss the issue of review
commitment at the IETF 112 meeting's OPSAWG session and we can go from
there.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group
-pcap-00, keeping the
content as is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th
the end of the week. If you are interested in
this work, please reply with your support on this list until *Sunday,
October 24th*.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https
the end of the week. If you are interested in
this work, please reply with your support on this list until *Sunday,
October 24th*.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https
.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lear-opsawg-ol-01
ending on Monday, October 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes an extension to MUD that allows
Hi all,
afaik, SPDX 2.2.1 exactly reflects ISO 5962:2021.
The specification can be found here: https://github.com/spdx/spdx-spec
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 04.10.21 22:51, Michael Richardson wrote:
Henk Birkholz wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG members,
> this starts a call for Working
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tuexen-opsawg-pcapng-03
ending on Monday, October 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes the PCAPng format - the successor of
the PCAP format - retaining the established
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gharris-opsawg-pcap-02
ending on Monday, October 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes the current definition of the PCAP
format that has been the industry's de-facto packet
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-lear-opsawg-ol-01
ending on Monday, October 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes an extension to MUD that allows MUD
file authors to specify ownership and licenses in the
Dear OPSAWG members,
please note that the NomCom 2021-2022 Call for Volunteers started today.
The IETF NomCom appoints people to fill the open slots on the IETF LLC,
IETF Trust, the IAB, and the IESG.
Ten voting members for the NomCom are selected in a verifiably random
way from a pool of
is ready for adoption and for the working
group to work on.
Authors, please rename the I-D to
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-00, keeping the content as is,
and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 27.04.21 20:01, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts
.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 27.04.21 20:00, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-05
ending on Tuesday, May 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes
somewhere else.
Eliot
On 29 Apr 2021, at 19:39, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Hi Eliot,
shouldn't be the MUD file (that is maintained by an appropriate authority,
hopefully) in charge of that? The default SBOM retrievable via the MUD file
could therefore always be the latest version? Older versions
Hi Eliot,
shouldn't be the MUD file (that is maintained by an appropriate
authority, hopefully) in charge of that? The default SBOM retrievable
via the MUD file could therefore always be the latest version? Older
versions should be discoverable via the MUD file or mechanism around that?
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-07
ending on Tuesday, May 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes YANG modules intended to facilitate
the aggregation of an assurance
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption for
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-claise-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-05
ending on Tuesday, May 18th.
As a reminder, this I-D describes the health of an interconnected system
of network devices and
Hi Tom,
thanks! On second thought, why not use
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-00 instead :o)
Viele Grüße,
Henk
On 26.01.21 17:53, tom petch wrote:
From: OPSAWG on behalf of Henk Birkholz
Sent: 26 January 2021 15:26
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working
is ready for adoption and for the working
group to work on.
Authors please rename the I-D to
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-00, keeping the content as
is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.01.21 19:05, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call
is ready for adoption and for the working
group to work on.
Authors please rename the I-D to
draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-00, keeping the content as
is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.01.21 19:03, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts
they are non-controversial).
Eliot
On 26 Jan 2021, at 14:03, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this email concludes the call for Working Group Adoption on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00.
We received a reasonable number of positive replies, no objections
for adoption and for the working
group to work on.
Authors please rename the draft to be draft-ietf-opsawg-sbom-access-00,
keeping the content as is, and resubmit.
For the OPSAWG co-chairs,
Henk
On 04.01.21 17:10, Henk Birkholz wrote:
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group
Dear OPSAWG members,
as a reminder, today is the final day of three ongoing calls for adoption:
I-D.lear-opsawg-sbom-access,
I-D.richardson-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations, and
I-D.richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls.
For the OPAWG co-chairs,
Henk
ly discard SBOM information sent with a media type
that is not understood.
Thanks,
Dick Brooks
Never trust software, always verify and report! ™
http://www.reliableenergyanalytics.com
Email: d...@reliableenergyanalytics.com
Tel: +1 978-696-1788
-Original Message-
From: Henk Birkholz
Sent:
ute to the IETF. If you
think sharing of SBOMs is important, this is a *starting
point* for the IETF to begin work on that aspect, not an end
point. Please feel free to contribute by joining the opsawg
IETF list at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg.
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-acceptable-urls-03
ending on Monday, January 25.
As a reminder, this I-D describes ways to update (if possible) MUD URIs
as specified in RFC8520 Manufacturer Usage
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-richardson-opsawg-mud-iot-dns-considerations-03
ending on Monday, January 25.
As a reminder, this I-D describes potential issues and concerns
regarding the use of DNS names and IP
Dear OPSAWG members,
this starts a call for Working Group Adoption on
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lear-opsawg-sbom-access-00 ending on
Monday, January 25.
As a reminder, this I-D describes different ways to acquire Software
Bills of Material (SBOM) about distinguishable managed
YANG set a pretty solid IETF precedence here. As an individual, I'd +1 a
too late here.
On 12.11.20 00:40, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12-Nov-20 10:47, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> We didn’t use the ISE for JSON. Why should we use it here?
> I have no
! It’s great to have you onboard. I hope you’ll be able to join
us at the virtual 109 meeting for a proper introduction.
Joe
On Sep 11, 2020, at 12:35, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
wrote:
Dear all,
I am happy to announce that Henk Birkholz has agreed to serve as a third OPSAWG
WG chair to help
Just to be really sure: invoke implies executables and not code
fragments, yes? If you mean executables that would be the SAM scope of
SWID then, I think.
Why do you think that this has not been explored? I was under the
impression that this is currently being covered in the SBOM WGs out
Hi Eliot,
replying to a single item below.
On 18.08.20 15:18, Eliot Lear wrote:
Perhaps. I can’t say. We’re going to need some operational experience. There
are a number of use cases in the IoT field where you plug in different
components that require different software loads. One aspect
below.
On 8/29/17 11:40 PM, Henk Birkholz wrote:
# IoT-DIR Early Review of I-D.ietf-opsawg-mud-08
## Draft Summary
This draft defines a canonical way to compose an URI that points to a
specific resource called a MUD file. A MUD file is a text resource
that contains imperative guidance in the form
Reviewer: Henk Birkholz
Review result: Has Issues
Hi,
I am the assigned IoT-DIR reviewer for this document's early review.
Please find my comments in kramdown below.
Viele Grüße,
Henk
# IoT-DIR Early Review of I-D.ietf-opsawg-mud-08
## Draft Summary
This draft defines a canonical way
80 matches
Mail list logo
