[OPSAWG] Status of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 18 February 2022 14:46 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C051B3A116E; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RRh0JpTs-SGl; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4D23A1173; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 21IEkEdX024611; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:15 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11E44604B; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA234604F; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([185.69.144.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 21IEkDBJ008364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:14 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Rob Wilton (rwilton)'" <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf.all@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:12 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <010601d824d6$470aa1b0$d51fe510$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Adgk1Nx2127we+6oQMq44v2MBwaPOg==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 185.69.144.58
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-8.6.0.1018-26724.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.766-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.766-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-8.6.1018-26724.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.765700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jA0IjsM/h0qwHZ1ma7tfpjjNGpWCIvfT+IfriO3cV8Rwmq5DHMikwPo/ CdvNUnR19F3Id1Fj/mwR5gYuoaxsK4XWZSIKVRR3s/Hes76OTZB7SJD07Zwx0a+WgCcaviqGywT ssRZLf22oNgyLYqDVxT/xv+Z7brYhFfe5SMtqsQiwOmfjQ30zedqj0IvL3PWycFfbHRo0WfdG1z aoYFqfLjJstmMrIcCFu0RF/G9ha4iPaFHMfVTC4Dl/1fD/GopdyJ1gFgOMhOm0chhiAsZuNlBIV svVu9ABvECLuM+h4RB+3BndfXUhXQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/TyPStuhJGHtQ-UqPoQojLuYQ86w>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Status of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:46:30 -0000
Hi, I'm just reviewing a different draft in OPSAWG (draft-song-opsawg-ifit-framework) and it has a reference to draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf It seems to be in a bit of an odd state. It went into IESG evaluation at the end of October and attracted some weighty comments (one set attached to an Abstain ballot, one set to a Discuss that has now been cleared). Nevertheless, the document shows it has enough Yes ballots to be approved, and no Discusses. It is in "Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup" state. Since the start of the IESG review, the document has been updated (three times with the last revision being on December 3rd) and emails seem to have gone around explaining the updates. I see nothing on the OPSAWG mailing list to suggest that you have any further issues with the document, so I wonder why it is "stuck" and if the reference I am reviewing is good. Any clues? Thanks, Adrian
- [OPSAWG] Status of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf Adrian Farrel
- Re: [OPSAWG] Status of draft-ietf-opsawg-ntf Rob Wilton (rwilton)