Re: [alto] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for this Med, I am fine with this inclusion.

//Zahed

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:53 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Zahed,
>
> > That is understandable, and it this is conscious decision to not cover
> > the latest and greatest then I would expect the specification describe
> > that. A statement on the current scope and the potential extendibility
> > to cover the new ALTO transport will help here.
>
> A PR to clarify that TIPS is out of scope can be seen at:
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/pull/102/files
>
> Please let the WG know if more is needed. Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> Med (doc Shepherd)
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> > Envoyé : jeudi 26 octobre 2023 17:22
> > À : 'Zaheduzzaman Sarker' <[e-mail]>
> > Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : RE: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang-
> > 15: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > Re-,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > Zahed,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is a matter of balance between what the WG can successfully
> > deliver vs.
> > > exhaustiveness. Proceeding in steps (having first a base module +
> > > including provision to graft extension) is pragmatic given the
> > limited
> > > resources of the WG.
> > >
> >
> > That is understandable, and it this is conscious decision to not cover
> > the latest and greatest then I would expect the specification describe
> > that. A statement on the current scope and the potential extendibility
> > to cover the new ALTO transport will help here.
> >
> > Med: Looks good to be me. Added an issue to record this:
> > https://github.com/ietf-wg-alto/draft-ietf-alto-oam-yang/issues/101
> >
> >
> >  I have seen other YANG documents do that when they are not covering
> > for example QUIC.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that the spec relies upon common reusable http models
> > > (draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server) which do not support http/3.
> > >
> >
> > Noted, those are still in draft I guess and we can ask question why
> > they support HTTP/3 while they are working on it. There might be valid
> > reason for doing it , and important thing is to acknowledge it.
> >
> > Med: I would be surprised if that draft is changed to cover HTTP/3
> > given that it was there since 2019 and it would be great to finalize
> > it given the set of I-Ds that depends on it:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-
> > server/referencedby/.
> >
> >
> > //Zahed
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>