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

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 6:12 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.
> 
> Ok. Let me respond to that on the thread Adam has initiated.
> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I did a Google search for the topic of one of the drafts, and top hits came from IEEE. But both the papers are available on a subscription basis. What is the policy for quoting papers that are not publicly available?
> 
> To the question for the need to have a reference to virtualized infrastructure, the authors are merely pointing out that the problem of measurement is more acute because of scale. We are happy to drop the reference. 
> 
> Please advise. 

I think dropping the references is preferable.

Thanks,
Alissa

> 
>> 
>> 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.”
> 
> Will fix.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>