Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01

Hi Tom,

Yes, indeed I agree with you. Our intent is to specify the need for the liaison statement, the scope, and terminology in the main text (as you pointed out Section 2.3.1 in the current draft). Our plan is to highlight this section in the very upfront of the revised draft (perhaps 01 of the WG draft-to-be).  

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:34 AM
To: julien.meuric@orange.com
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01

----- Original Message -----
From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
To: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 2:53 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
> Though it may be true from a content perspective, any individual draft 
> has the same administrative status as draft-foo-bar containing a
stuffed
> snails recipe. A formal step is required before liaising to another
SDO,
> adoption by a WG is the 1st one.

Indeed (tasty as stuffed snails are).

My thinking is that the liaison should be simpler, plain text, rather than being wrapped as a YANG module, which may or may not encourage readers in the ITU.  It seems to me that it is Section 2.3.1 that needs a response from the ITU and that wrapping that up in a YANG module may make that harder to achieve.  That is what gives me pause.

Tom Petch

> Cheers,
>
> Julien
>
>
> On 02/04/2019 13:41, tom petch wrote:
> > I never see much difference between working on an unadopted I-D and
an
> > adopted one so see scope for progress - e.g. Normative References -
even
> > if it is not adopted at this moment in time..
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp