[Anima] WGLC comments on brski-cloud, and Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-06.txt
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 07 February 2023 18:39 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAD17C15EB2E for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:39:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tij5sUCHwGi6 for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 155C8C159A1D for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (94-168-11-122.static.v4.ziggozakelijk.nl [94.168.11.122]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE01A1F47B for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 18:38:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 710BCA1EA5; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:38:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E941A1E5E for <anima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 19:38:55 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: anima@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <167578400550.52197.15508843554537029163@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <167578400550.52197.15508843554537029163@ietfa.amsl.com>
Comments: In-reply-to internet-drafts@ietf.org message dated "Tue, 07 Feb 2023 07:33:25 -0800."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 19:38:55 +0100
Message-ID: <2400872.1675795135@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/1_CEzyLdZo5BDYN3CT4BzbyhXqU>
Subject: [Anima] WGLC comments on brski-cloud, and Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-06.txt
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 18:39:03 -0000
I have merged in the YANG extensions that were done in BRSKI-CLOUD, which I had missed before. You can see it in the diff: > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-06 Only, you can't, because the YANG didn't process correctly! Let's see, okay: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-07&url1=draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-05 The pull request to remove the YANG from brski-cloud is at: https://github.com/anima-wg/brski-cloud/pull/23 The pull request to remove the YANG from constrained-voucher is at: https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/pull/262 The pull request to remove the YANG from brski-ai is at: https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-brski-prm/pull/78 It might be better to allow the WGLCs to proceed and *then* move the YANG as being less confusing to reviewers. It might also be better to change rfc8366bis from a document that obsoletes RFC8366, to one that just Updates (Amends) the RFC8366's YANG, and has no other text. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
- [Anima] I-D Action: draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis-0… internet-drafts
- [Anima] WGLC comments on brski-cloud, and Re: I-D… Michael Richardson