Re: [I2nsf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-12

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

On 05/12/2021 22:49, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> t petch <[e-mail]> writes:
>> I think that your comments are excellent as comments on a isolated I-D
>> but might not be such an improvement for the set of six (or seven or
>> eight) that I reference.  When these I-D first appeared, there was a
>> debate on the WG list.  This is not Event-Condition-Action. Oh yes it
>> is. Oh no .. (we are in the pantomine season).  I have seen a number of
>> such divergences since.  Your comment that there are two different
>> definitions of Event in this I-D reminds me of this.
>
> Frankly, I don't fully understand your point here.  But I've been tasked
> with reviewing this document and have done so.  Might I ask what your
> capacity is here; what is the context of our discussion?

Dale

My capacity is a member of the I2NSF WG, one seeking to improve the 
quality of IETF I-D.  The context, for me, is a cluster of I-D with many 
links between them; others will likely see a context of a single I-D.  I 
am concerned that the cluster uses the same terminology, the same 
technology (in YANG) where that is appropriate, something I felt was not 
happening earlier in 2021 and have put effort into addressing.  My 
concern is that a change that improves one I-D in isolation may not be 
an improvement in the context of the cluster.  Last Call, and 
Directorate reviews, as currently structured, may not be well suited to 
this but it is the process that we have.

HTH





>
> Dale
> .
>