IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)

"Michael H. Behringer" <michael.h.behringer@gmail.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 08:43 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.h.behringer@gmail.com>
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 21B36130E2A; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A9oO94ggb5eV; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2696D130E03; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id b203-v6so617855wme.5; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:cc:references:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=bVw6joOzaV82+q8CJz4wVrGH1yj/MLY1GZABTCdh5Mg=; b=mWctqihF7gklPM82k0Y2QcvYvH1KJ6gOwyM+bq86/L3OTt4w7C5KrpJpnrBu+X0ehD +LaJxt9dJ3d1+EkGTklC0Muken/oRBcc7z1y6d15UDFWqt/ZvTnzVA110G4wAWvL+jqU qqzPUp9tZSbBpcM+fjGrnx50cYTy5y9a4AIJ+x60O+ijCKQH6m+HO+sXUyVbTzjIdRo1 QHWe2glW/H915jEvQNXKbNP3hS/uY7uG475rEORrtKTycraYsKGLpiW6wXHmuYysz4IU uqPQlX8sq+FM7AJfl2sEqFMaDmp5DUyyjCn1kOkEckDxcGH5Q08727P84T9+5TSyJKBO cgKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=bVw6joOzaV82+q8CJz4wVrGH1yj/MLY1GZABTCdh5Mg=; b=jTbjbsEs/oviMkb3TwHD2nKY2QXyRI6Yn8ss6fQp5TzqEIJifV0/sM41NAWwlytBS1 At2KYe0685kX6q9jO4aLVvaqUA86GbGwj7sOh7sRmpOwkHWiC08Fa7NXEjF0kn3h8LJj QiXP/1Fka3tn1NvT59JRVzYBA3feKD4C5ILToounJh/O3DygN9aS87m2ZeLJ69hIwj5u EK4dvxMoVVhinpitsdBcRSl1HN1lE8+wVNHvYiSzizTEeswECMTWaL5by5BxCrTGcrpp ui6IDTSKpWX+QpNKvSn0FnqGuqBjkWnd07UPVI2DA6+TQzUWrz8aZ7ONtr8zsjtcfDcI SnEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLXuiV4AzrWxWSaA0oyPYHhfD0Eu3O4jg+pGn/J6FQBzxObjDDn g9MunGj82A3jxMuZxO1blwQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c7GRgvbJDxoqTWlFM+43ZT59qD6habk31wQQ3SuR2HwlWr9TeK2EDjKGoSKYdKKVivoZqL7w==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f417:: with SMTP id z23-v6mr905426wma.80.1540456991526; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.31] (anice-652-1-371-113.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr. [83.201.206.113]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g76-v6sm437607wmd.25.2018.10.25.01.43.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Michael H. Behringer" <michael.h.behringer@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: "Michael H. Behringer" <Michael.H.Behringer@gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte+anima@cs.fau.de>, anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org, draft-ietf-anima-reference-model@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
References: <154042252127.6853.18391573929277125477.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1db87d2f-6709-2613-0422-182989531701@gmail.com> <CE5C5C5B-5811-4825-AD6E-5F076C386A9E@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <d13fc74a-e61e-ca63-3283-5ce1be247966@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:43:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CE5C5C5B-5811-4825-AD6E-5F076C386A9E@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: fr-classic
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/SXGW89MimTlc0BQcnnMnit6ctU8>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-reference-model-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:43:15 -0000

Hi Ben, thanks for your review!

Yes, we're a bit "verbose" with those topics. There was a consistent 
worry all through our work to distinguish phase 1 and phase 2 work, and 
to not let phase 2 work creep into phase 1. So we probably erred on the 
more "explicit" wording, trying to make REALLY sure everybody 
understands what's in scope for phase 1 or not.

Unless you have a real concern at some specific points, I would prefer 
to not open those debates again. Yes, from a language point of view 
there is redundancy, but at least we're being very clear.

Michael


On 25/10/2018 04:33, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
>> On Oct 24, 2018, at 8:10 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> On 2018-10-25 12:08, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> Thanks for the work on this. I just have one editorial comment:
>>>
>>> - Several sections describe themselves as being for "informational purposes".
>>> Given that this is an informational document, isn't that true of all sections?
>> Those sections are among the ones tagged (*) as per:
>>
>>>>    Some topics are considered architecturally
>>>>    in this document, but are not yet reflected in the implementation
>>>>    specifications.  They are marked with an (*).
>> Possibly the (*) is sufficient and the phrase you mention can be removed.
> I think that could help. Or alternatively, put a few extra words in the (*) sections to remind people what it means :-)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email