IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> (YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard

Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu> Thu, 19 October 2017 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E15E133328 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-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 sQ_afWxXliBs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBDE31332E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n14so7611487pfh.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=x7rhWmefQpTuuJDjOqDv0QdwEZLky1JGCnTCO0rBSII=; b=bTvMVr4NFllQHXePSSzKQ//BQ9KBQ0BS6BYjPyw4acuKFq9zDaSMQaLiKKWa/IPHqd p+qWZaND6R5MbVmlNy14QVjXmpQbQxXqkCfQzquxvu/f9zX465jcQHh2jjOkJSI6kCNn Q92+PhkcfGPKdiXBJKif0Qg0bvVEWIj/0VCiov4tzhmMJ1Syh7msuLwndH34JHkvWu8G lw8RKDw4TJN7ZUx/C+AM70pZdbqAQSCJvNzKywz/oqBVzIQ8nqQtkjseGqtQtgrOeMDG krp0xUQamrLUyTKXCXiLCXIfBVOHIz3AM8ByCUFKIvFShWVWWR9AZNFRo+bwFsoGevh4 cQLw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXX/wuo/IMwobakLXLs4nPfZl/4fFbQoGYf01wP1CPdGrHYEQ1a IWf+zPJ6igdSU8XfhT68pFfxgRrmXfA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TDMd/+qkFRmlY0JvXjt2Sufjah6Kx6GA19hbvkqGi8ypzUz/VnH5hVHdCHDq+kWHDEPkoDGg==
X-Received: by 10.98.141.89 with SMTP id z86mr2530573pfd.207.1508444670012; Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (c-24-130-218-233.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.130.218.233]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y206sm29392645pfb.155.2017.10.19.13.24.29 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> (YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard
To: IETF Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <150531137507.30405.6179845967838123305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3d65a756-fe9b-19de-fd94-40f4618d729b@cisco.com> <c6efd2ae-5f5d-1699-89fe-0d2f28b71cdb@alumni.stanford.edu> <46f1be77-03ab-61b7-b64c-aa05739d0985@cisco.com>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@alumni.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <49df01e3-fd3e-4dd6-d9b9-f39c45985f9a@alumni.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:24:29 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <46f1be77-03ab-61b7-b64c-aa05739d0985@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s09OfNz0kIiEGFr-UPvjhKaU9mM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:24:34 -0000

Hi -

On 10/19/2017 3:46 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>> Hi -
>>
>> On 10/13/2017 11:55 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> ...
>>> Since RFC8049 is not implementable and therefore not implemented,
>>
>> That's rather a leap of faith.  The fact that spec is badly broken
>> and probably should not have been published in the first place isn't
>> of itself going to stop someone from using it as the basis for an
>> implementation of *something*. 
> Quoting Jan Lindblad, as YANG doctor:
> "The 8049 YANG model had broken XPATH expressions, so a compliant 
> implementation was impossible."

The infeasibility of "compliant" implementation does not preclude
good-faith implementations of *something* using that module name.
We've seen that happen with other "broken" RFCs in the SNMP world, and
I see no reason why things will be any different in the YANG world.

If the WG is truly confident that no one had any intention of
implementing RFC 8049 (how else could it have been published without
the error being discovered?) and it has seen no uptake since
publication, then I agree it's a non-issue, though one might
wonder why the work was undertaken in the first place.

Randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email