Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-03

Hi Fan,

It's not possible to submit a new version during the adoption poll.
What we're polling is version 03, not 04. If you had waited for a reply from us we would have told you.

Can you please share all the changes that you've made in v04? If the working group agrees on them we'll adopt v04.

BR
Daniele  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <shirley.yangfan@huawei.com>
> Sent: den 13 juni 2022 10:11
> To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; wangminxue@chinamobile.com;
> ccamp <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Cc: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; Fatai Zhang
> <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-
> cm-03
> 
> Hi Tom and CCAMP,
> 
> The authors update the I-D, please check the links below to see whether the
> new 04-revision is satisfactory.
> 
> Regards,
> Fan
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm/
> 
> There is also an htmlized version available at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-04
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-04
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 7:25 PM
> To: wangminxue@chinamobile.com; ccamp <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Cc: daniele.ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; Fatai Zhang
> <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-
> cm-03
> 
> From: wangminxue@chinamobile.com <wangminxue@chinamobile.com>
> Sent: 11 June 2022 15:17
> 
> Hi，TP!
> 
> Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions and comments!!
> 
> We have carefully analyzed these comments this week and held several
> rounds of discussions.  So it takes us some time for reply. Pls see inline!
> 
> //to TP and WG chairs:  the key confusion is caused by whether it requires a
> new ifType. Since the application of ifType is not necessary, the authors
> would like to fix the other comments after the WG adoption. Otherwise it
> may require a new adoption to the 04 revision. We would like to hear the
> opinions from chairs, thank you.
> 
> <tp>
> 
> I agree that everything apart from the ifType can be fixed after adoption but
> that ifType needs fixing before adoption ie in the next five days.  Squatting is
> always unacceptable and anything that suggests otherwise needs fixing
> ASAP; a revised I-D without any reference to a new ifType would be a good
> fix.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 发件人：tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> 时 间：2022-06-03 17:08:17
> 
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of
> wangminxue@chinamobile.com <wangminxue@chinamobile.com>
> Sent: 02 June 2022 01:23
> Hi，WG！
> 
> We have updated the draft of FlexE configuration model according the last
> IETF meeting. Pls see as follows.
> 
> <tp>
> Quite a lot needs doing to this I-D
> 
> YANG module has no Copyright statement which means --- no copyright!
> //Authors: yes, thank you for reminding. Copyright statement will be added
> in the module.
> 
> IANA Considerations are wrong.  Go read RFC8892 and follow the procedures
> there for registering a new iftype.
> //Authors：Considering some Ethernet interfaces could work in the FlexE
> mode, it's more proper not to confine the specific implementation. So the
> code "if:type = 'ianaift:flexEclient' will be deleted, and accordingly there is no
> need to consider a new iftype.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think it wrong to put 'flexEclient' in the module - the expert
> review may require a different value and then confusion can reign.  You
> should use a placeholder as you should do - but do not do - for the RFC
> number until a value is assigned.
> I oppose adoption until this is fixed - it is very bad practice IMHO.  You can
> apply for the iftype here and now and should do so.  Start applying - now!
> //Authors: as discussed, this part will  be removed from I-D according to the
> considerations above.
>         augment "/if:interfaces/if:interface" {
>           when "if:type = 'ianaift:flexEclient'" {
>             description "Applies to FlexE client interfaces";
>           }
> prefix in the YANG modules do not match IANA Considerations.
> //Authors: yes, the inconsistency between revision 02 and 03, will be fixed in
> new revision.
>     "YANG Module Names" registry:
>      Name: ietf-interfaces-flexe-client
>      Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces-flexe-client
>      Prefix: flexecl
>      Reference: this document
> module name in the YANG modules do not match IANA Considerations
> 
> 
> 
> YANG import MUST have a reference and that MUST be a Normative
> Reference in the I-D
> //Authors: Normative  reference to "RFC 7224: IANA Interface Type YANG
> Module" wil be  added  to “import iana-if-type” and the Normative
> References section.
> 
> YANG needs references, at least to FlexE if not more
> //Authors: normative  reference to OIF FlexE IA 2.1 will be added in YANG
> module.
> 
> s.1.2.1 Ethernet PHY, FlexE PHY could do with a reference
> //Authors: normative  reference to IEEE 802.3 and  OIF FlexE IA 2.1 will be
> added in s.1.2.1.
> 
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-
> 454445555731-64993a459801c113&q=1&e=a6e06e47-bec3-4e95-bdb9-
> 41d0e152cc77&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftools%2F<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1
> /url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-
> 64993a459801c113&q=1&e=a6e06e47-bec3-4e95-bdb9-
> 41d0e152cc77&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftools%2F> should be
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-
> 454445555731-7a34456acbaefb3b&q=1&e=a6e06e47-bec3-4e95-bdb9-
> 41d0e152cc77&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker%2F<https://protect2.fireeye.
> com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-
> 7a34456acbaefb3b&q=1&e=a6e06e47-bec3-4e95-bdb9-
> 41d0e152cc77&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker%2F>
> //Authors:  fixed in new revision.
> 
> 
> 
> six authors are generally seen as too many
> //Authors:  it is still too early to decide the authors’ contributions. We
> would like to reduce to five authors when I-D is in stage of WGLC or
> somewhere else.
> 
> I do not see enough differentiation in the module description clauses.  I
> think that each should mention the other and why it exists.
> //Authors:  actually s4.1 and s4.2 is one module. Would be clarified it in new
> revision.
> 
> bandwidth lacks a YANG units clause
> //Authors:  the unit of bandwidth is given in descriptions.
> 
> timeslot-list could be enforced by a regex
> //Authors:  we think it is already clearly enought for recongizing the time-
> slots. For implementation reasons, it is recommended not to change if it is
> not necessary .
> 
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ________________________________
> -------------------------------------
> 王敏学/ Wang Minxue
> 中国移动通信研究院 基础网络技术研究所 / China Mobile Research
> Institute
> 地址: 北京市西城区宣武门西大街32号创新大厦,100053
> 电话: 010-15801696688-33202
> 传真：010-63601087
> Email: wangminxue@chinamobile.com
> -------------------------------------
> 
> From: tom petch<mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Date: 2022-06-04 00:15
> To: Daniele
> Ceccarelli<mailto:daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>;
> CCAMP<mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-
> 03
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
> <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Sent: 03 June 2022 15:57
> 
> Working group,
> 
> All the IPR declarations have been collected, we can start a two weeks poll
> on making  draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-03 as a CCAMP working group
> document.
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support"
> and a motivation for  your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice
> to have for the "support".
> 
> <tp>
> Do not support - vehemently.
> 
> This I-D squats on a registry that is key to the working of the IETF.
> 
> Such behaviour should never be tolerated.  The authors should follow the
> defined procedures to request a value n the registry  and should never have
> produced this I-D until that procedure was under way.  The Expert Reviewers
> need to know what is going on.
> 
> See my remarks earlier today for more details.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> The polling will end on Friday June 17th .
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniele & Fatai
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp