Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TERNA PR3 - Update machinev1 #95

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

smazzucco
Copy link

Proposal to add the words “and connection” to include also repeated remote connection tentative to URL (intranet and/or file shares).

Proposal to add the words “and connection” to include also repeated remote connection tentative to URL (intranet and/or file shares).
@sebix
Copy link
Contributor

sebix commented May 20, 2021

What is a connection attempt? A SYN packet?

@aaronkaplan
Copy link
Collaborator

A tend to agree with @sebix here... I am seeing all of these change requests and I did not see consensus in the mailing list for them . CC: @amicaross .
I think the goal of this WG is to have a common picture of the values and fields that should exist!
In this light it is less relevant if it's complete or if the wording is 100% for every one (it will never be).
But this common picture is what counts.

@sebix
Copy link
Contributor

sebix commented May 20, 2021

A tend to agree with @sebix here... I am seeing all of these change requests and I did not see consensus in the mailing list for them

I assume these are change proposals to be discussed in the next meeting

@aaronkaplan
Copy link
Collaborator

aaronkaplan commented May 20, 2021 via email

@amicaross
Copy link
Contributor

A tend to agree with @sebix here... I am seeing all of these change requests and I did not see consensus in the mailing list for them . CC: @amicaross .
I think the goal of this WG is to have a common picture of the values and fields that should exist!
In this light it is less relevant if it's complete or if the wording is 100% for every one (it will never be).
But this common picture is what counts.

@smazzucco please send an email to the mailing list with the proposed changes so that we can start the discussion. @sebix @aaronkaplan we will go through all these in the next meeting.

A tend to agree with @sebix here... I am seeing all of these change requests and I did not see consensus in the mailing list for them . CC: @amicaross .
I think the goal of this WG is to have a common picture of the values and fields that should exist!
In this light it is less relevant if it's complete or if the wording is 100% for every one (it will never be).
But this common picture is what counts.

@smazzucco please provide an overview to the ML and start the discussion there in preparation of the discussion during the upcoming meeting

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants