Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-14.txt

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 17 March 2021 04:00 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D203A197C for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 xZA0XBW9cPnk for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 5D6C03A1978 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id n132so39594242iod.0 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KAFfIy63wCPXgBEwwAogKEuxs4IcF43rT/DxnxpHcDo=; b=FygVkjSzAKPaihRSHudKgKPCiMdEH4wHz/3hFsBgZaNt3Z4rJPlpIylIRMS2UzfqCu J5otWRO5nJeuQ7p/4Cl4OBrjLOAs6Nnuy8uzxtw/xxpR/CsHcQi+hyjTrl4pslLitE23 eBaWNfdgvULiPDyjajOROJ3z48VwL0Zl53w+Heb07m6rO2MTqujik7U8tqw+fnFxwDOu lGEeLoFG2UDD0y5KEOzUBusLZMT0BFT8b2uGcnsj400DVyurfC8pKUbS+y3PJ4oZZf22 NxGKUvKr6G/sGMzw9bHKVZyVaaxQIqZjkeLIqOV/HNvd0WAlGCwB4SZQPpXz+E8uRIb2 2nMQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KAFfIy63wCPXgBEwwAogKEuxs4IcF43rT/DxnxpHcDo=; b=IayFxa8ZTxZmF2se0ltYx1GFhsMEmTSSrRntHN0PNd2nBsR3cSEVjs36vQFXFlAREV PbjXQBN7LG8/7nf8Uh3T1O8gyocA6VokVLSMEO/OvG33FS2WpA6wIKafQg+qGbSTsXbm Ea9gRR69jGWLk/sY8c5CEU+2qyHHsCxmcdJvYGiPs3gNYBC8l3ZPmnZusls3Cw8Vpa/x pdGrj7rWI1t3qcrIAIdgB8dMHpmvoeyKMoLXJW4XYOctBkBhnzFl3Lx6Qa0QpAZ2uT0L h+2AJDw9W9a9tsxZ/cPwkx79GfJ5KznL62itKs9dYLTqmodUeq13UkUABWK6ranVss5L if9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533r8qxorSTR/VxwtXBGXUCfphhkgM1otb+vyyz9RgxsdcOWQxq5 jwZYI0cs61061XztAeoNShpgLYZLQ94dnTzVk+8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJys36BSCaynmxhBmaZ0xyG1lxNVJ3PsxJZnMPYSihXHWSB48sA9b0mYAchW16Ud7/9N7XsTOFVyUh8tTF8IkPo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2711:: with SMTP id m17mr1384262jav.115.1615953629999; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161551207042.13956.2933636104479614348@ietfa.amsl.com> <DB6PR0701MB24239BBACDDB224B2913B564CE6B9@DB6PR0701MB2423.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <DM6PR02MB6924F8C02E5495FC3B3A44DBC36B9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR02MB6924F8C02E5495FC3B3A44DBC36B9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEFo_eYgCSjMy2j4=ZKR=nQcwXKVneNQ31LSbnPgNnC31g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: tom petch <ietfid@btconnect.com>, "babel@ietf.org" <babel@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016f57905bdb386ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/KgsTdg_a7GMyuN7VK0KoTh3ZRq4>
Subject: Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-information-model-14.txt
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:00:33 -0000

Hi Barbara,

It looks to me like it is just the milestone that says Proposed Standard
for the Information Model. Procedurally, Since the Information Model is
through the process and could just go to the RFC Editor, changing it from
Informational to Proposed Standard would be somewhat painful. On the other
hand, just re-running a brief WG Last Call for the YANG Model after making
the information Model reference normative, if that's really necessary, with
notice of the downref, would be relatively easy.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com


On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:41 PM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> > Barbara
> >
> > I was looking at babel-yang-model and realised that it was impossible to
> > understand without a comprehensive understanding of
> babel-information-model
> > so the latter is clearly a Normative Reference.  Except, of course, that
> the latter
> > has been put forward as Informational which is perhaps why the YANG I-D
> lists
> > the latter as an Informational Reference but I cannot see that approach
> going
> > anywhere ie it immediately becomes a downref:-(
> >
> > In passing, imports of IETF modules must use the prefix specified in the
> RFC
> > which the import of ietf-yang-types here does not.
> >
> > Tom Petch
>
> You ask a very interesting question. I don't recall having that
> conversation in the WG (but it might have slipped my mind). I see from the
> charter that the deliverable was slated for Proposed Standard. The draft
> has gone through the complete WG process and (I think) has the full support
> of the WG -- so I don't *think* the WG would object to the information
> model as a Proposed Standard. I wouldn't object. I don't know if people in
> IETF or IESG would object. Thanks for asking?
> Barbara
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>