Dear Joe and Benoit,
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Regards,
Alex
> On 7 Apr 2025, at 13:46, Benoit Claise
> wrote:
>
> Dear draft-lopez-opsawg-yang-provenance authors (and the WG at large),
>
> In preparation of the WG call for adoption, we want to get a lay of the
As a contributor. I have read this document, and I appreciate the formatting
changes the authors have made. I think it is ready for publication.
As a chair, I assume that mcr and Guy would be willing to act as initial
designated experts on this?
I have assigned myself the shepherd role, and I
From: Ketan Talaulikar
Sent: 10 April 2025 09:20
FYI and a request to monitor this work as it will have implications on
upcoming/ongoing work (and documents) in the routing areas well.
Please contribute to the discussion on the opsawg mailing list.
I would find it helpful and easier to find
If you want to discuss this in the context of the OPS Area, why not use
ops-a...@ietf.org?
-Original Message-
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 10 April 2025 12:34
To: tom petch ; Ketan Talaulikar ;
rtg-...@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-opsarea-rfc5706...@ietf.org; opsawg@i
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Sent: 10 April 2025 12:33
Hi Tom,
As indicated by Benoît, the document is listed under opsarea:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/opsarea/documents/
We don't list it in opsawg as we want to uplevel this effort and not
"restricted" to a single WG.
We are us
Re-,
I hear you Tom, but there few subtle things that we inherited. For example,
intarea is a **formal WG** that has a charter that can adopt documents. Opsarea
is an AG. I won't dive much more into those things and will focus more on this
part of your message:
> I have looked at the I-D and
From: Adrian Farrel
Sent: 10 April 2025 12:50
If you want to discuss this in the context of the OPS Area, why not use
ops-a...@ietf.org?
Because ops area does not figure in the web page for Active IETF working groups
AFAICT.
By contrast, intarea is listed under the internet area and rtgwg is
FYI and a request to monitor this work as it will have implications on
upcoming/ongoing work (and documents) in the routing areas well.
Please contribute to the discussion on the opsawg mailing list.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 4:19 PM Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The bcc opt
Hi Adrian,
I have considered that but abandoned that path because that list is almost
"stale" since years. That’s something we can fix, but another day :-)
What is really key here IMO is to have a discussion venue where we are
confident that we have active participation. OPSAWG (which is the ar
FYI for the authors and ADs.
This can be achieved without changing the file name. Just ask the Secretariat
to make the draft show up in the OPSAWG list.
A
-Original Message-
From: tom petch
Sent: 10 April 2025 12:08
To: Ketan Talaulikar ; rtg-...@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
Cc: draft-opsare
FYI and a request to monitor this work as it will have implications on
upcoming/ongoing work (and documents) in the routing areas well.
Please contribute to the discussion on the opsawg mailing list.
Thanks,
Ketan
-- Forwarded message -
From: Benoit Claise
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2025
In going through the shepherd write-up requirements, I note a few NITs in this
document. The most correctable one is to remove the 2119 boilerplate and
reference as this document doesn’t make use of any normative text.
As for the references to obsolete RFCs (1483 and 2625), I think they should
FYI and a request to monitor this work as it will have implications on
upcoming/ongoing work (and documents) in the routing areas well.
Please contribute to the discussion on the opsawg mailing list.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 4:19 PM Benoit Claise wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> The bcc opti
On Apr 10, 2025, at 8:57 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
> As a contributor. I have read this document, and I appreciate the formatting
> changes the authors have made. I think it is ready for publication.
As the person listed as editor, I think that the version at
https://datatrac
Thanks, Guy. Formatting aside (there are various formats generated by the
Datatracker tools), I would suggest you and Michael submit what you are
comfortable with ahead of publication to the IESG. As chair and shepherd, I’ll
mark this as pending an updated I-D once this WGLC closes. And when
On Apr 10, 2025, at 10:23 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke)
wrote:
> In going through the shepherd write-up requirements, I note a few NITs in
> this document. The most correctable one is to remove the 2119 boilerplate
> and reference as this document doesn’t make use of any normative text.
That has
Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-opsawg-04-03: Yes
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.)
The document, along wi
Hi YANG doctors,
As some of you might be aware, Dan Romascanu and Mehmet Ersue have been running
the YANG doctors directorate for the last several years. Both of them were
long-time participants in IETF but stopped coming to any meetings before COVID.
At this time, they have decided to retire f
Hi Tom,
As indicated by Benoît, the document is listed under opsarea:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/opsarea/documents/
We don't list it in opsawg as we want to uplevel this effort and not
"restricted" to a single WG.
We are using opsawg mailing list for convenience.
Thank you.
Cheers,
Dear all,
On top of what Med said...
When Med decided to AD-sponsor this document, he selected a couple of
editors/contributors.
If you look at his selection, you will see that the two OPSAWG co-chairs
are in that list.
Hence an extra reason to list the documentunder opsarea:
https://datatrac
20 matches
Mail list logo
