Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04

Hi OPSAWG and all,

I support the progress of this document. This document looks mature enough.
I appreciate that the authors provide detailed use cases.

As Alex and Rob said, maybe it is also valuable to be discussed in NMOP. I
have no strong opinion on which WG should adopt this document. But I am
willing to enter the further discussion.

Best,
Jensen

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 6:06 PM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi authors, OPSAWG, WG chairs,
>
> I appreciate that the timing isn’t ideal, but given that NMOP has just
> been successfully chartered, and Incident Management is one of the current
> topics of focus for that WG, then I think that it would be better for this
> document to be discussed, and potentially adopted, within that WG.  I.e.,
> so that all the incident management related drafts and discussions are kept
> to one place.
>
> I appreciate that this will potentially slow the adoption a bit, since I
> think that NMOP should meet first, and this draft should then be presented
> in NMOP, but hopefully it would only slow the adoption call by a few months.
>
> Note – this doesn’t stop interested parties showing their interest in this
> work, reviewing the draft and providing comments now.  And of course, that
> discussion can also happen on the NMOP list.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Alex Huang Feng <
> alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 13 February 2024 at 05:25
> *To: *Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact>
> *Cc: *OPSAWG <opsawg@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPSAWG] 🔔 WG Adoption Call for
> draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04
>
> Dear OPSAWG,
>
>
>
> I support the progress of this document.
>
>
>
> I only have a comment. Since the creation of the new NMOP WG, I wonder if
> this draft should be discussed in that WG too. There is “incident
> management” in the charter.
>
> Some of the related work such as
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-nmop-incident-terminology/ is
> planned to be discussed there.
>
> Just wondering.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On 9 Feb 2024, at 00:44, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@ietf.contact> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear OPSAWG members,
>
> this email starts a call for Working Group Adoption of
>
>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-feng-opsawg-incident-management-04.html
>
>
> ending on Thursday, February 22nd.
>
> As a reminder, this I-D specifies a YANG Module for Incident Management.
> Incidents in this context are scoped to unexpected yet quantifiable adverse
> effects detected in a network service. The majority of the document
> provides background and motivation for the structure of the YANG Module
> that is in support of reporting, diagnosing, and mitigating the detected
> adverse effects.
>
> The chairs acknowledge some positive feedback on the list and a positive
> poll result at IETF118. We would like to gather feedback from the WG if
> there is interest to further contribute and review.
>
> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>