Re: [ippm] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Just to add, since both documents are approved I don’t think this will be a problem at all, nor will it unduly hold up publication. The RFC editor is completely capable of taking care of this on their end, presumably using their normal “cluster“ process, and they probably would’ve noticed it on their own even without my comment.

—John

On Dec 1, 2023, at 11:55 AM, Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:



Hi Tom,
thank you for your consideration of this issue. As I understand its root is that in the course of the discussions of IETF Network Slices document the decision to change the term  "IETF Network Slice" to "RFC XXXX Network Slice" (where XXXX is the number to be assigned to the RFC when published) was reached. John's suggestion to process the PAM draft in the same batch with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice (sp?), in my opinion, is the right way forward avoiding any possible confusion or the need of doing bis on the PAM document.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 1:55 AM tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
From: ippm <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 30 November 2023 18:38

Hi John,
thank you for your thoughtful observation. We'll work with the RFC Editor to address the RFC XXXX issue.

<tp>

Dropping the IESG

Greg

The usual way is to make the reference to the I-D by name.  Thus for RFC8639,
  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif]
              Voit, Eric., Clemm, Alexander., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
              Nygaard, E., and Alberto. Gonzalez Prieto, "Restconf and
              HTTP transport for event notifications", May 2019,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Bmdi219QOxjGJtR5V33eklBgkgRIwdivbULCZFIaykBFV_7_mFR6NS80-gD7rG-Z-dklBhyxUMzF8iRtHA$>
              draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif/>.
in the  I-D became

   [RESTCONF-Notif]
              Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A.,
              and A. Bierman, "Dynamic subscription to YANG Events
              and Datastores over RESTCONF", Work in Progress,
              draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-15, June 2019.
in the RFC and this is now RFC8650.  I see this used widely.

Tom Petch

Regards,
Greg

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 6:38 AM John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-pam-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Bmdi219QOxjGJtR5V33eklBgkgRIwdivbULCZFIaykBFV_7_mFR6NS80-gD7rG-Z-dklBhyxUMwdpORxew$>
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-pam/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Bmdi219QOxjGJtR5V33eklBgkgRIwdivbULCZFIaykBFV_7_mFR6NS80-gD7rG-Z-dklBhyxUMxBsPOETQ$>



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- Thanks for this document

- One thing to note, because of the need to expand "RFC XXXX", this document
effectively has to go into a cluster along with
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-25, even though the reference is only
informative.