Re: [DMM] Disaggregated FPC documents

Lyle Bertz <> Sun, 07 April 2019 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF031201C5; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 16:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8jYgBctB_9C0; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47350120148; Sun, 7 Apr 2019 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id v24so5040343lfe.9; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5NWckcH8xXbpKLwQyJUEci5kzAbs9RFIgIJEhr11psM=; b=Fp/2nddyDRpskcXUYgC94c9c4x7XCs2xRRY4fG7OfgAvUkoGZZwO7L3QmBEHZyrRzu OotZ63HrttnYZrwaurKKdl2IT5B2hoE0YsGP8GI2oV5jOagPYguPODhpDYrB180v1hSH S13P8MEHhaauRj29bChyYqmademKAuifVaL84kpOLRak6BIhjnYksSNWRbiqfZoFXMcw uqlF5oqKDfAp8W+jp37bFsS1fRDXAGoksbcCj+mXWirHScwO1OxjxcagllHW/z45ve2f rsgD7qSiG+uotOxY1xnjbxC45vBDmfz+K9aA9Y3WNxiJfqMvbxno128Z32wOrGylFh9r MIwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5NWckcH8xXbpKLwQyJUEci5kzAbs9RFIgIJEhr11psM=; b=Ngxr+cOZIBfEbq4wN3VrJ/YvSXfekbUyOBHG0dPUbiB9hsceBfh3xlXAv9nu93BPSc LHNs7sdT9rJh414+mlPXnuANu/SwpyYDgY2MuVKW0bwudsZD9n3ITu0fj59ZrB9nB9q8 s4rNkTIrzl7qI7vNmNyM9BQ7blQDvX/IED4FEjm1ELeiYCF6HayGW6eiWWQz1R1dpYJV BQPSPqOK2tprMtKi8EmzHJriWohxxocjcqLIqnH65zYcoU/TcozkNac6D4alLOkHFbXd CAxHFkTV6V1xW+GzfLk6y3bf3MdaQa1AsXT3IJl0D+Lv9lVDOzJLdag1boNwvJgrwytQ ifbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWA+YZlj+03D0CF8H9R7dlfXgln/m3SrUs3qpCefbHNReADuO2R t2Nnc1isCjCE/8e8VBdeuUVQ2YvXe8klxax1ZyQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwcyKZlxTwvahZcjbA68h6TnjwQuyqmvXSfMgRSOeyuhTaog3L2UZFgo43Ru/34tKT1rDyDdDe3byNf/beKddc=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5189:: with SMTP id u9mr8873015lfi.3.1554678056365; Sun, 07 Apr 2019 16:00:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lyle Bertz <>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 18:00:43 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Charlie Perkins <>
Cc: dmm <>,, Suresh Krishnan <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a321e0585f8b16d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Disaggregated FPC documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2019 23:01:01 -0000

As the YANG document is standalone you may want to ensure you are still
complying with netmod criteria for such RFCs.

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 2:39 PM Charlie Perkins <>

> Hello folks,
> During the [dmm] meeting at IETF 104, I suggested that we should try
> breaking the YANG definitions out into a different document so that
> potential reviewers would not be intimidated by 150+ pages of document
> text.  I got reasonable support for at least trying the idea. If it
> doesn't work, I will volunteer to recombine them in the future.
> Briefly scanning the base document, I see that it needs another pass for
> readability as well.  That will take a while, so I propose to do that
> later after the submission of the two companion documents.  I will scan
> both documents for consistency and so on, but they are ready for
> submission now.  In the YANG document, I was considering to include a
> list (without definitions) in the Terminology section for the FPC terms
> that are defined in the base document.  Comments are welcome about that
> suggestion.
> Suresh has expressed the opinion that it would be O.K. to have the
> companion YANG document considered to be a WG document.  If anyone in
> the [dmm] group has objections to this proposal, please let me know.
> Thanks in advance!
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list