IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Re: Gen-art LC Review of? draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 19 April 2018 00:50 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7461012D778; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Dnd-9yHY4Xc4; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98D1D1270AB; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E797158C4F0; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 02:50:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id D4F14440214; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 02:50:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 02:50:41 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.all@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180419005041.qotqshfc7vkht45o@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <2vnnj4bct7mlx8ulb604r9tc.1524096293973@email.android.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2vnnj4bct7mlx8ulb604r9tc.1524096293973@email.android.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Hu3hQKGsgbroV0iVSzRKP8KSpOM>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Re: Gen-art LC Review of? draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 00:50:50 -0000

Sorry, trying to get through backlog. Took longer than expected...

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 01:04:53AM +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> Hi.
> It has been about 6 weeks since responses to the review were postponed till after IETF 101.... any thoughts yet?
> Regards,Elwyn
> 
> 
> Sent from Samsung tablet.
> -------- Original message --------From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Date: 02/03/2018  12:04  (GMT+00:00) To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane.all@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC Review of
>   draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane-13 
> Just taking up one point for the time being....  
> Even if the reference model is informational, I was relying on RFC 8067, s1, para 3:
>    Section 2 of [RFC3967] lists some conditions under which downrefs may
>    make sense.  In addition to those, it has become common for working
>    groups to produce foundational documents (which contain important
>    information such as terminology definitions and architectural design
>    and considerations) at Informational status, and those documents are
>    often needed as normative references in the Standards Track protocol
>    documents that follow. 
> I would say that sombody implementing ACP really needs to have read and understood the reference model and so I would argue:1. That it needs to be normative,and2. The downref is sanctioned by the language in RFC 8067. 
> I am on holiday for a week and others are fighting the draft deadline so perhaps we can postpone discussion of the other points until the draft panic has subsided.
> Cheers,Elwyn
> Sent from Samsung tablet.

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email