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

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer and Alissa,

From: ippm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 10:00 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Alissa,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:13 AM Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]<mailto:[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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=seDncmaEebMu4iGCJiMYOLMG46N2EjTcGHkoOCkpuYY&s=qhsQSq50VBebWcF5OS-nPl6vZaaKmiGKuYnf7cooqu4&e=>
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/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=seDncmaEebMu4iGCJiMYOLMG46N2EjTcGHkoOCkpuYY&s=7Kfg1qwZcGR9YmbkImHZXJnmpL2e9YmNTYvoWOHJyvI&e=>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[acm]
It is my recollection that we had a YANG Doctor Review from Jan Lindblad,
a complete re-review from Jan several months later (after addressing earlier
comments), and a re-re-review from Ladislav Lhokta after that.

We took the Doctors’ many prescriptions for better model health.
Al