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

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Wed, 31 October 2018 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.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 D0BF5130DC1; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 05:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 rFMJTZKC8pvX; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 05:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 F38A2130DC3; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 05:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w9VCFrbq013226; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:20:59 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nf77kaj0r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:20:59 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9VCKvYO014884; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:20:58 -0400
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [135.66.87.47]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w9VCKqco014764; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:20:52 -0400
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 34ECD403E4B3; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:20:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.147]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 1D83B403E4A9; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:20:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.5.180]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAC.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.147]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 08:20:51 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: "Yemin (Amy)" <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
CC: Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT )
Thread-Index: AQHUcRQpsutLuFqQiUuLMIUsAifUnQ==
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:20:50 +0000
Message-ID: <64BBF7CA-4243-43C2-878B-322F99DC1907@att.com>
References: <154047368042.16350.848149558496752916.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCFA6DE38@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com> <C10611EF-0E6C-47D0-AD27-7FDA2DE58147@kuehlewind.net>, <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF8AC0FCD5B@dggeml530-mbx.china.huawei.com>, <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCFA72785@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <9C5FD3EFA72E1740A3D41BADDE0B461FCFA72785@DGGEMM528-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-10-31_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1810310102
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZX7vs6Qjqm6ct9WSSdsc1xbBPSg>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT )
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: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:21:07 -0000

Thanks Amy-

Agree these are informative-

Deborah 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 31, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Yemin (Amy) <amy.yemin@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fatai and Mirja,
> 
> Thank for your comments. 
> The draft co-authors discussed on this again. This draft defines YANG models. For developers who implement this yang model, they don’t need to know the technology details. 
> For example,  BBE, SES, they are just a data for the YANG model developers to process. But knowing the defintion will definitely help the developer's understanding. 
> So those reference are to provide addtional information. 
> According to IESG statement, it's better to put them in the informative reference section. 
> 
> BR,
> Amy
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Fatai Zhang
> 发送时间: 2018年10月27日 9:12
> 收件人: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF); Yemin (Amy)
> 抄送: The IESG; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org
> 主题: 答复: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
> 发送时间: 2018年10月26日 16:26
> 收件人: Yemin (Amy) <amy.yemin@huawei.com>
> 抄送: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; ccamp@ietf.org; Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org
> 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) <amy.yemin@huawei.com>:
>> 
>> 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:ietf@kuehlewind.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:21 PM
>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>> Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang@ietf.org; Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; ccamp@ietf.org
>> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIGbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=cU06UjyOnejuL7GUr3ZwET0o1k5G9Q54WwWv7AZDF-s&s=-pcDvKvISxUHAdfa61THnD17T0L_4B458k5LVdQEsx8&e=
>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dccamp-2Dmw-2Dyang_&d=DwIGbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=cU06UjyOnejuL7GUr3ZwET0o1k5G9Q54WwWv7AZDF-s&s=acQ0pqjMfnxLO8VSdv7XyOJNx5smNYUYgii7qxoXjPs&e=
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ccamp&d=DwIGbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=6UhGpW9lwi9dM7jYlxXD8w&m=cU06UjyOnejuL7GUr3ZwET0o1k5G9Q54WwWv7AZDF-s&s=MGYnx-DtgWSaM4IUq_JQDPqgby-Cm1Tlh8mRwR2kzLc&e=