Correct β the wg version is not approved.
> On May 10, 2024, at 8:58β―AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Doesnβt look like Henk approved the submission yet (and I did not). So we > can cancel this submission, and you can repost. > > Joe > > From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> > Date: Friday, May 10, 2024 at 08:47 > To: 'Henk Birkholz' <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact > <mailto:henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>>, 'Carlos Pignataro' <cpign...@gmail.com > <mailto:cpign...@gmail.com>> > Cc: 'OPSAWG' <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 > > Hmmm, did Carlos jump the gun? Don't you hate enthusiastic people? > > If so, do you want us to undo the changes? Options would be: > - Ask the Secretariat to unpost the latest revision > - Post a change-back version of the draft > > Alternative is that "we" suck it up. > - You post email to say, all changes made addressed only the adoption poll > comments > - You accept the adoption and we follow up per Carlos' plan > > Let us know. > > Cheers, > > A > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact > <mailto:henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>> > Sent: 10 May 2024 13:43 > To: Carlos Pignataro <cpign...@gmail.com <mailto:cpign...@gmail.com>>; > adr...@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> > Cc: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 > > Hi Carlos, > hi Adrian, > > please do it the other way around βΊοΈ > > The chairs ask the authors to first rename > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 to > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization-00, keeping the content as is, > and resubmit. And then post a -01 that addresses all discussion so far, > as these represent WG feedback already. > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > Henk > > On 09.05.24 03:08, Carlos Pignataro wrote: > > Thank you, Henk, for the descriptive and thorough wrap of this adoption > > call. > > > > Like Adrian, I'm also inclined to align with your conclusions, including: > > > > * "draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization" WFM -- even when it is much > > _less_ expressive than the original, IMO ;-) > > * As the other one of the editors, ofc more than happy to commit to, > > seek, and follow the WG on the 'pro-active alignment'. > > (understanding we are at a starting point in which the relevant > > lexicon is 'reactively misaligned', or otherwise we would not need > > this draft.) > > > > Net-net: All sounds good with thanks! > > > > I can post a rev++ addressing all discussion thus far, and then an > > unchanged draft-ietf-opsawg-...-00 > > > > Thanks! > > > > Carlos. > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 4:14β―AM Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk > > <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk> > > <mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: > > > > Thanks Henk, > > > > Apologies for the fatuous original name of this draft (but it worked > > to get everyone's attention ;-) > > > > - Yes, your suggested new name works for me. > > > > - Since you ask, as one of the editors, I commit to a "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 <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact > > <mailto:henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>> > > Sent: 08 May 2024 08:50 > > To: OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>> > > Subject: [OPSAWG]Re: π WG Adoption Call for > > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03 > > > > Dear OPSAWG members, > > > > this email concludes the 1st call for Working Group Adoption for > > draft-pignataro-opsawg-oam-whaaat-question-mark-03. > > > > We received a healthy number of replies, including a good discussion > > about "yet another set of terminology" and its intrinsic > > usefulness/feasibility in the IETF. A good example reflecting the > > overall discussion is the existing terminology established in the > > DetNet > > WG and published in RFC 9551. > > > > The chairs discussed the inputs and comments and believe this work > > to be > > feasible to be adopted as a working group I-D. This believe includes > > the > > expectation that no inconsistencies are introduced by this work and the > > authors, editors, and contributors commit to a pro-active alignment > > (scope and relationship of terms and their use in the respective > > ecosystems) with other existing bodies of work that is brought to > > attention in OPSAWG or otherwise. > > > > Typically, we would now ask to rename and resubmit as is. Alas, > > there is > > the inconsistency between draft name and draft title. Some concern > > about > > that naming was raised during the WGLC. While the draft name was fine > > for the individual submission, the chairs tend to agree that a more > > expressive draft name would benefit the work. Could the authors please > > work with the WG to come up with a better draft name? We can kick this > > off with a proposal from chairs: how about > > draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-characterization? Please bash, so we can move > > forward. The chairs assume that this 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 > > > > <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" (OAM) is used currently & > > historically > > > in the IETF and intends to consolidate unambiguous and protocol > > agnostic > > > terminology for OAM. The summary includes descriptions of narrower > > > semantics introduced by added qualifications the term OAM and a > > list of > > > common capabilities that can be found in nodes processing OAM > > packets. > > > > > > The chairs acknowledge a positive poll result at IETF119, but > > there has > > > not been much discussion on the list yet. We would like to gather > > > feedback from the WG if there is interest to further contribute and > > > review. As a potential enabler for discussions, this call will last > > > three weeks. > > > > > > Please reply with your support and especially any substantive > > comments > > > you may have. > > > > > > > > > For the OPSAWG co-chairs, > > > > > > Henk > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OPSAWG mailing list > > > OPSAWG@ietf.org <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> <mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org > > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org><mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org > > <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org><mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
