Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-sdi-02

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Dear OpsAWG,

As there has been no feedback, I have to assume that you think that
this document is **absolutely** perfect, and contains nothing unclear,
inaccurate or confusing. Franky, this surprises me - I'd thought that
the bit about the penguins was somewhat vague...

W
(Yes, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to try and get more review
and feedback :-))



On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:41 PM Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> With the publication of -02 of this draft, it seems to have reached stability.  There has been interest in both usage an implementation of this draft expressed in the past, but discussion has been quiet lately.
>
> This email serves as a two-week start of a WG LC for this document.  Please [re-]read this draft and comment on its content as well as whether or not you feel it’s ready.  WG LC will conclude on February 18, 2020.
>
> Authors and contributors, please reply on-list as to whether or not you are aware of any intellectual property attributed to this work.  Reply that either you are not aware of any such IP, or reply with the details of known IP while also making sure you complete any IPR disclosures in data tracker.
>
> Joe and Tianran



-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf