IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 22 June 2018 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20DEA130EA6; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CGhlPVQVtfUN; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl0-x244.google.com (mail-pl0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CDCD130EA2; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl0-x244.google.com with SMTP id g20-v6so3720522plq.1; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=aYzZJSk1jaTjgbVNPzOwUNcik4RbD4KRYE7qBWfdiMI=; b=bIZSoYcMEcCyiJ48yW8YEj8fUsNBgzJQ/sqAKulJOOc/6gN0QmyDm5E+OXWLNQTNQV jq8obqY0yxsAGX+vyAV1artCkLFyalY9ztQP+W6xIXD+kc04ohuWCBZ7HI9HsSdFBsc3 mjgO8OC/4uQvBS2s1cPn96yRRBFpj57zGQrPW+FYyOItA/gDUZjj6oDQdYYwe9sIEJyH KtvdpTHCGSOWLyE/NugC40q1xNSuKA9MYUbWC4F53TpJqAvyVHEKsuKu1c1acMtFPxz2 /2zwzZ5DvvwZRQVH91zP4NialtudKnzSP1K4cL4dzlzyK2h9ahlt4YsE0AcKvWkWkYHH nw7A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=aYzZJSk1jaTjgbVNPzOwUNcik4RbD4KRYE7qBWfdiMI=; b=mERCm8MSC5+BosgqRq1SGqmPjhkWEGqinsOVHTmwcSRPjViAiSnBC6nvuCEFx9q0P2 Zi95yWtATZfdQEzJHW0iEW9WyamypuR/tjU+tLWgY42sMRj65IqP/ecTEs7cBu+pAqB8 PXxg9r/kOrWQ+b09F3CST/x90+X+pQdTFyALFOW6KO09OFk7Q++y+vZtzsMV/4oaCdNy KvE85mxjC1U+a/DxTwxylfD8IBVf8sA+5I6jnBXyHaiDgukSednbJasI+p1Vzf4bErIS 6Zn+hD6rJuz/H3e4hVXECOm1yVEMjZA7qTd+1x3huRwuery9U1dRW3cfWq1dG79AmSum M7xg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2itaWjsEOMCSwn5w3c6nL5Y9/revEu9MLRDHELh//X01yMF8a0 qC9QP5oyj91/apfXmsyZGYktd39+
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLx9xSVo7/CJV2PJk1OfXNj+rVWeWGOU3djO3goE78HbX4BuiXvdf1zDZIaDnSsxVE6nOD1kg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b60c:: with SMTP id b12-v6mr2350365pls.44.1529683591644; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4700:1280:4d0b:6c71:d421:caa8? ([2601:647:4700:1280:4d0b:6c71:d421:caa8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z74-v6sm17913321pff.54.2018.06.22.09.06.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <D8FC3CA5-F709-4EE6-81C0-B9121625202B@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DA31FEC9-EDAC-417B-9C33-82B68DFA7A91"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <6F023FC8-107C-4B02-94E4-8249F665D604@cooperw.in>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang@ietf.org, Nalini Elkins <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>, ippm-chairs@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <152958677666.31598.2871670854497240031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <767FDA55-D716-4005-9150-0C6AAD47CAB8@gmail.com> <6F023FC8-107C-4B02-94E4-8249F665D604@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/TUbi-P_tUe3SEgeoVtYF2nhW1t0>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:06:34 -0000


> On Jun 22, 2018, at 6:19 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Alissa,
>> 
>>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 6:12 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> 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://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/ <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.

Will do.

Thanks.

> 
> 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
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email