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

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BDF12025A for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 03CYX52pmbUh for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F52120177 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id DD40CD7FDD99BA91E3F for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 17:43:48 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 17:43:48 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.136]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.61]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 09:43:46 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
Thread-Index: AdTokK+vn1DgGsI+TZaZNiPisf8ojgA4YOOg
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 16:43:45 +0000
Message-ID: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E173D10E04D@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <VI1PR07MB50409E6F464C786A9CCAE608F0550@VI1PR07MB5040.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <091501d4e948$a188c800$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <7701_1554213204_5CA36954_7701_2_7_ffc8ad41-1454-0a3e-dcf3-633f03bd451b@orange.com> <014401d4e971$8e2a4c60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <014401d4e971$8e2a4c60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.192.11.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/8pU3nqlTkZZSTKWSuSqXVqnxq9w>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 16:44:01 -0000

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