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

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

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. 

> 
> 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]