Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Alissa,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:13 AM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I support Adam's DISCUSS.
>
> Section 1.1: I'm surprised to see the two references to the long-expired
> NFVRG
> drafts. If a reference to describe virtualized infrastructure using
> orchestration is really needed (I'm not convinced that it is), I would
> assume a
> better reference exists from outside the IETF/IRTF.
>
> Section 5.2:
>
> OLD
> "Encrypted mode 'makes it impossible to alter
>               timestamps undetectably.' See also Section 4 of RFC 7717
>               and Section 6 of RFC 4656."
>
> NEW
> "Encrypted mode 'makes it impossible to alter
>               timestamps undetectably' [Section 6 of RFC 4656]. See also
>               Section 4 of RFC 7717."
>
> Process comment more for the AD: the YANG doctors reviewed a version of
> this
> more than a year ago. Is that typical or would they normally review again
> during IETF LC?
>

I'm not that clued about the definition of "normal" for YANG documents
(IIRC, this is the first one I've been responsible for), but I noticed
that, too, after seeing Adam's ballot. He caught something I'd expect a
YANG doctor to catch, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that what
they are watching for has changed since 2016, after a few hundred YANG
reviews :-)

So, yeah, early reviews are great, but maybe IETF LC is a good time to
re-review?

Spencer