Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

It is a short document.  The sentences are not complicated.  It reads quickly.

There’s been little/no wg comment on this, certainly no controversy, over the lifetime of the draft.

But still.

Please.  Pretty please.  Pretty please with sugar on top.  Pretty please with a cherry on top.

Could we get some feedback that this document is ready for publication?

—Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs

On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:

> No responses at all.
> 
> Come on folks.  It’s a short document, like Chris says.
> 
> You should be able to read and comment without much trouble.
> 
> —Sandy, speaking as one of the wg co-chairs
> 
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Chris Morrow <morrowc@ops-netman.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Howdy WG folks,
>> Please take this note as the start of the 2wk WGLC period for:
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops-07>
>> 
>> Abstract:
>> "Deployment of the BGPsec architecture and protocols has many
>>  operational considerations.  This document attempts to collect and
>>  present the most critical and universal.  It is expected to evolve as
>>  BGPsec is formalized and initially deployed."
>> 
>> This is a relatively short document, 8 pages, full of wonder and
>> excitement! I hope that the wg members have read it (it's been through
>> 8+ revisions) and that they will re-read it quickly, provide comments
>> as appropriate and ideas on preparedness for publication or not.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for you time and attention to this matter,
>> 
>> -Chris
>> co-chair-persona
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list
>> sidr@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> 

Re: [sidr] WGLC: draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-ops - ENDS: 2016-06-14 (June 14 2016)

Attachment: signature.asc