Re: [Netconf] Finished WG Last Call fordraft-ietf-netconf-access-control-04.txt

Just to be clear, I didn't say to abandon it.  I just said it wasn't an important problem to Juniper, which is why I was neither supporting or not-supporting it.  Same as in the WG meeting in Quebec, I neither raised my hand in favor or against it...

Thanks,
Kent

-----Original Message-----
From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:51 AM
To: netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Finished WG Last Call fordraft-ietf-netconf-access-control-04.txt

> - The comments from Kent Watson ("abandon this I-D and this work, it
is
>     not needed") was already brought up when we started/chartered the
work.
>     Nobody seems to have picked up on that and so Kent seems to be the
>     lonely dissenter in this case. So I consider this matter closed
>     and I read WG consensus that the WG DOES want to finish and
standardize
>     this work.

This is also my understanding.

Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
> ext Bert (IETF) Wijnen
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:17 AM
> To: netconf
> Subject: [Netconf] Finished WG Last Call fordraft-ietf-netconf-access-
> control-04.txt
> 
> My quick evaluation as co-chair:
> 
> - quite a set of good comments/concerns from various reviewers
>     will be addressed by editors/authors in a new revision
> - we got a commitment from our Securoty Advisor (Tim Polk) that he
will
> review
>     as well and give us feedback. If he is timely, then authors will
address
> his
>     comments in new revision. If not, then he will review the next
revision
> - The comments from Kent Watson ("abandon this I-D and this work, it
is
>     not needed") was already brought up when we started/chartered the
work.
>     Nobody seems to have picked up on that and so Kent seems to be the
>     lonely dissenter in this case. So I consider this matter closed
>     and I read WG consensus that the WG DOES want to finish and
standardize
>     this work.
> 
> Bert (speaking as co-chair)
> 
> On 8/4/11 9:11 AM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote:
> > We did not get any requests for extension of the WGLC end date.
> > So WGLC has ended for this document.
> >
> > The authors will address all comments with a new revision.
> >
> > Bert and Mehmet
> >
> > On 7/29/11 6:31 PM, Bert (IETF) Wijnen wrote:
> >> WG participants,
> >>
> >> Pls review BEFORE or BY August 1 if you have not already done so.
> >> A "I read it and see no issues or have no concerns" is also very
welcome!
> >>
> >> I case you need a couple of days extra time (and commit a date for
> >> your review), we're willing to consider a short extension.
> >>
> >> Bert and Mehmet
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject:     [Netconf] WG Last Call for
draft-ietf-netconf-access-control-
> 04.txt
> >> Date:     Wed, 13 Jul 2011 16:53:24 +0200
> >> From:     Bert (IETF) Wijnen <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
> >> To:     netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear WG participants,
> >>
> >> This document was published mid-June, and we have not had much
comments
> >> sofar. So we conclude it must be ready for WG Last Call.
> >>
> >> This is a formal WG Last call for
draft-ietf-netconf-access-control-04.txt
> >> Please review and send any comments BEFORE August 1.
> >> Best would be if you can send it BEFORE July 24, so that we can
discuss
> >> any open issues during our Netconf session at IETF81 in Quebec.
> >>
> >> Bert and Mehmet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf