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

>> i just pushed -08 with what i believe to be all fixes from comments on >> -07. it may be time to push the button on this one. > Actually, Joe did that on 2023-11-29, and it is sitting in Rob > Wilton's AD queue… doh. randy ___ OPSAWG mailing list

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

On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 2:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > i just pushed -08 with what i believe to be all fixes from comments on > -07. it may be time to push the button on this one. > Actually, Joe did that on 2023-11-29, and it is sitting in Rob Wilton's AD queue… W > randy > >

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

i just pushed -08 with what i believe to be all fixes from comments on -07. it may be time to push the button on this one. randy ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

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

g@ietf.org Subject: 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 writeu

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] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update

, 2023 2:31 PM To: Michael Richardson ; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Rob Wilton (rwilton) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: 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, "Mi

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

t; Envoyé : jeudi 30 novembre 2023 14:23 > À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) > Cc : opsawg@ietf.org > Objet : 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 >

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.

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

shepherd, mcr. Joe From: OPSAWG on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 13:56 To: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update This kicks off a two week WG LC on the update to “Finding and Using Geofeed Data”. This draft has received some

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

thanks, med. all in emacs buffer for -07. this is wglc. would appreciate more constructive reviews. randy ___ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

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

Hi Randy, Deal! Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Randy Bush > Envoyé : jeudi 16 novembre 2023 17:37 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : Oops Area WG > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-9092-update > > how about rewording to

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

how about rewording to remove second must so we don't need to argue over it? :) OLD: and the file geofeed_1 contains geolocation data about 192.0.2.0/29, this MUST be discarded because 192.0.2.0/24 is within the more specific inetnum: covering the address range and that inetnum: has a

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

> * The changes vs 9092 lists "Geofeed file only UTF-8 CSV", but the > NEW abstract removes the CSV mentions that were called out in > the abstract of RFC9092. I would revert to the OLD wording in > 9092. my, admittedly poor, memory is that this happened because some other

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

Re-, Thank you Randy for the follow-up. Please see one comment inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Randy Bush > Envoyé : mercredi 15 novembre 2023 18:07 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : Oops Area WG > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-

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

hi med, thanks a million for the time reviewing > * Abstract: add "This document obsoletes RFC 9092. sure; in my emacs buffer for -07. aside: is this sort of doc tracking in abstracts a fashion? > * Abstract: s/datafiles/data files doh. thanks. > * The changes vs 9092 lists

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

… and it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Rob, not me, is the responsible AD for OpsAWG. Assuming this gets WG and IETF consensus, I will recuse myself during the ballot. Also, I know of no IPR which needs to be disclosed. W On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 1:56 PM, Joe Clarke <

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

sure I would keep the last para starting with "There is open-source code to traverse ..." in Section 4. This is can be moved to an appendix of to Section 8. Cheers, Med De : OPSAWG De la part de Joe Clarke (jclarke) Envoyé : mardi 14 novembre 2023 19:56 À : opsawg@ietf.org Objet : [OPSAWG

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

This kicks off a two week WG LC on the update to “Finding and Using Geofeed Data”. This draft has received some initial comments and a rather extensive certificate review from Job. We’d appreciate some more eyes to look iover the changes to the original RFC9092 and focus comments there.