(1) I think that we need to have text to formally endorse the dispatch function for the ops area. (2) I would simplify this part as the message seems to be redundant: "The OPSAWG will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF. The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work items when they arise." [JMC] I’m okay with this, but we aren’t exactly a dispatch in the sense of some other areas. Moreover, I think it’s because of this kind of dual role we sometimes struggle to get engagement. For that reason, while I wouldn’t strongly object, I’d prefer to leave this more implied. (3) Please remove OPS from this sentence "...don't otherwise belong to another OPS Working Group" as there are ops-related topics in non-ops area (e.g. transport matters in tsvwg). [JMC] Fair point! (4) Don't know what is meant by "small-scale extensions". May be we want to say "minor extensions"? [JMC] I like that. (5) I would also cite service models, not only "network-level YANG modules" [JMC] I think I also listed service models in my initial comment on this. Good catch. (6) please clear the current two milestones [JMC] I thought we did in our edits… Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
