IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima] WGLC for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-06, ends Feb. 15th, 2023

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 03 February 2023 09:06 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 EA932C15952A for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 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] 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 DQWPx4S_0Epm for <anima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:06:23 -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)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A59B9C169506 for <anima@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 01:06:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (dynamic-046-114-158-105.46.114.pool.telefonica.de [46.114.158.105]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B35CD1F4A3; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:06:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43921A1DE3; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 04:06:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B3CA1DDB; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 10:06:20 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: =?utf-8?B?U2hlbmcgSmlhbmc=?= <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>, anima@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <tencent_4BDEC0553635FD7148DD37E7@qq.com>
References: <tencent_60984BB55FBEF6DB66EC162D@qq.com> <1830744.1675280076@dyas> <tencent_7EE6B5F96DFE42B84F752364@qq.com> <DU0PR10MB51962622F18AA11338412C44F3D69@DU0PR10MB5196.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <tencent_4BDEC0553635FD7148DD37E7@qq.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "=?utf-8?B?U2hlbmcgSmlhbmc=?=" <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn> message dated "Thu, 02 Feb 2023 17:40:38 +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: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:06:20 +0100
Message-ID: <2005120.1675415180@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/lWtBWcHeazWS78ZtUVPGV6x8zjc>
Subject: Re: [Anima] WGLC for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-06, ends Feb. 15th, 2023
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:06:26 -0000

Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn> wrote:
    > I do not prefer the "all-covered" model. As you stated, all has to be
    > "known" for now. What if another unknown requirement appeared？ Another
    > bis, BRSKI v3? I think it is better that rfc8366bis covers an
    > extensible generic framework and rules for future extensions. So, the
    > future requirements and their mechanism can be developed independently
    > without update BRSKI fundamental specification.

It would be better to make it extensible, but augment does not amend existing
modules, it extends them to make new modules.

If another requirement arrives, we have to do another revision.
That argues for making rfc8366bis not replace RFC8366, but just amend the
YANG module.  These are questions I've been posting about for months now.

You'll see how the YANG is isolated in other submissions, such as:
       draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture
       draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang

8366 doesn't have a lot of explanation actually, outside of the YANG module.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email