Erik Kline <[email protected]> wrote:
> As indicated in the minutes from Prague
> [https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-99-capport/], there was a
> general hum in favor of the API document:
> """
> 4. API document: do we need a milestone? Humming: in favor.
> 5. Is this document a good basis. Humming in favor.
> """"
> This email is to initiate a two week call for adoption for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donnelly-capport-detection/
I like the approach, please adopt it.
After adoption, I think the WG should consider if describing the JSON in YANG
would make sense. I've been through this in netconf/anima/6tisch now, and
while it seems like a silly annoyance at first, it seems to have some
advantages in the long run.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature