[CCAMP] 答复: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja and Amy,

Thanks for your review and discussion.

I think we could discuss the specific, i.e., which non-IETF documents should be normative and why, which non-IETF documents should be informative and why.

If a non-IETF document only provides background or historical information, then it should be an informative reference. 

It seems to me that these non-IETEF documents only provide background information, e.g., [EN301129] is referenced once, but this draft does not import modules from [EN301129].



Thanks

Fatai


-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
发送时间: 2018年10月26日 16:26
收件人: Yemin (Amy) <[e-mail]>
抄送: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
主题: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

Hi Amy,

not sure which part of the statement below you are relying you decision on but the document says:

"Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC“

So, as you say below, as these reference are needed to implement it correctly, they must be normative.

It is possible for non-IETF document to be normative as long as the reference are stable and open.

Mirja



> Am 26.10.2018 um 03:28 schrieb Yemin (Amy) <[e-mail]>:
> 
> Hi Mirja, 
>  
> Thanks for your comment. 
> Yes, these on-IETF specs are to be understood when correctly implement this YANG model.
> They are not completed removed from the draft. After shepherd write-up, those documents are moved to informative reference section according to thehttps://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/. I hope we understand the rules correctly.
>  
> BR,
> Amy, on behalf of co-authors 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:21 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)
>  
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: No Objection
>  
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
>  
>  
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>  
>  
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang/
>  
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> The shepherd write-up says that there have been normative references to non-IETF docs which seem to have been removed now. I wondering is that is correct. I'm by far not an expert and didn't have time to review this doc in detail but I would think that you would need to know some details of these on-IETF specs in-order to fully understand and correctly implement this YANG model, no?