Re: [I2nsf] Closing the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: I2nsf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]>
Sent: 27 April 2021 16:06

I2NSF WG,

As expected, there is no issue with the second time WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model.

<tp>
Sigh, I did not know there was a Last Call in progress, I did not see that on the datatracker:-(  I spent last week going round in circles trying to dovetail the five I2NSF YANG modules and this morning finally decided that it could not be done.

The general concern I have is that there are a number of YANG modules that are doing the same thing in different ways, with different terminology, different technology, which is going to give the user heartache IMHO

Today I read RFC8329 hoping that it would give one clear set of right terminology but it does not help much; thus s.9.2 therein is rather vague with question marks in places.  The various YANG modules are clearly in the same ballpark as the RFC but perhaps not on the same base e.g. the RFC has pass, deny, mirror while this I-D has pass, drop, alert, mirror and differences like that are repeated many times.  In places, that may be by design but in others I believe that it is not  I will post some more concrete examples on Wednesday.  I will seek to use 'capability' as the base, the refer4ence, and point out where the other four diverge

I would say that sdn-ipsec gets it right but I also note that the IESG made in excess of 150 changes to the I-D before approving it which I think on the one hand was necessary but on the other hand seems a profligate use of AD time.   More could have been done beforehand IMHO.

Tom Petch

This email is to confirm that the WGLC for the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16 is completed. We will move this draft to IESG.

Thank you very much for the work.

Best Regards,
Linda Dunbar

From: Linda Dunbar
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:37 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-16

Hello Working Group,

When I2NSF WG closed the WGLC for  draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model in Dec 2019 (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model&f_from=Linda%20Dunbar ), there was a formative reference to draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 which was stale.

After the review, IESG decided to throw the draft back to I2NSF WG and requested the WG to reach the consensus to sunset the draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05. The WG finally reached the consensus in  Oct 2020  (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2nsf/?q=draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model&f_from=Linda%20Dunbar)


Many thanks to the authors to merge all the relevant content from draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-05 and addressed all the comments from YANG Doctor review and

This email starts a two-weeks Working Group Last Call on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/

This poll runs until April 13, 2021.

We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details).
If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without answers from all the Authors and Contributors.

If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.

Thank you.

Linda & Yoav