Re: [L2sm] Proposed Liaison to 3GPP SA5

"Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rogaglia@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77FEF131184 for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 87ALl5ZviI4i for <l2sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25589131182 for <l2sm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2410; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528232982; x=1529442582; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LFmaUKjqHMhSqUXkrwxEciHqyCtu/ivGUvUVvv/0t8M=; b=En7JcIUyA/K5jlSVD5gSEQFUzBadilQ0id3fQv3fXljN+x4ULLH+9egB gqBwD+PAgmcjXHXHR3r4EweHyTB5gPV1u0Jfg62MDd+kBxt8ChiW3vknt c1UTLPa7CqogSwwWZsEJlk35vL3JZtTFyEgLP9MQs39+D/DKckPKZAgTR k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AMAgCt+xZb/4wNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNDgWEoCoNulHOBWCGUTYF4C4RsAheCCSE2FgECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAmwdC4UpAQQBIxFFEAIBCBoCJgICAjAVEAIEDgUUgw6BeQinS4IciEKBaIE?= =?us-ascii?q?LhzeBVD+BMwyBR2cuhHMXgmkwgiQCmHQJAo5mgT2DeIdrkH8CERMBgSQkATC?= =?us-ascii?q?BUnAVZQGCGJBOb44wgRkBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,479,1520899200"; d="scan'208";a="188131787"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jun 2018 21:09:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w55L9SAV029926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Jun 2018 21:09:29 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:09:28 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-011.cisco.com ([64.101.220.151]) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com ([64.101.220.151]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:09:28 -0400
From: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: "l2sm@ietf.org" <l2sm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [L2sm] Proposed Liaison to 3GPP SA5
Thread-Index: AdP77mZy+ziBQucgTuOCdr0I0+8PugABou9AADovkiAACnVnAAAFuTuA///tvQCAACL1gP//8I4AgAA0NYD//+pjAIAAKt8A
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 21:09:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D5900AC0-3406-47BE-A168-38518FE86CA1@cisco.com>
References: <000901d3fbf5$5648d790$02da86b0$@olddog.co.uk> <7ee2d1342bf6403583d834a1ae3f2d7d@TELMBXB02RM001.telecomitalia.local> <01a901d3fce6$00486b20$00d94160$@olddog.co.uk> <2717B04F-A52D-4F07-BCD6-54672978429E@cisco.com> <01c401d3fcf3$c389b230$4a9d1690$@olddog.co.uk> <D14DDD23-258C-4839-9CF8-4A9E989878F9@cisco.com> <01c901d3fcfd$856d13c0$90473b40$@olddog.co.uk> <40C646D5-7AE8-4715-9527-F6F75461ABD1@cisco.com> <01df01d3fd0c$d19cdeb0$74d69c10$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <01df01d3fd0c$d19cdeb0$74d69c10$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.c.0.180410
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.172.246]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5CF9DFDF93F4D1458854498C2AEF08C7@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l2sm/2iz06wyvVRtQkQCVdnhg2S6FfIo>
Subject: Re: [L2sm] Proposed Liaison to 3GPP SA5
X-BeenThere: l2sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Layer Two Virtual Private Network Service Model \(L2SM\)" <l2sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l2sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l2sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2sm>, <mailto:l2sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 21:09:45 -0000

Hi Adrian,

    Why cannot we refer to it as the IETF community consensual opinion? Or is your point that I am misrepresenting the content of the document?

In my view, the "IETF consensual opinion" for a best practice (such as how to use a service model) is the role of the IETF BCP documents track  and not informational documents tracks. Both RFC8199 and RFC8309 are at the same level as just documentation pieces that the IETF agreed they were worth publishing and recording. I do not believe the IETF should write a BCP on this domain and I agree on the classification of both documents as informational.

Please consider my contribution for a modified text to the 3GPP:
    "RFC 8199 and RFC 8309 are informational documents developed by the IETF community to show examples on how service models could be implemented."

Roque


´╗┐On 05/06/18 22:36, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; wrote:

    > Independently if RFC 8309 was approved following the correct process (which I
    > believe is your latest point), we cannot refer to it as the IETF community
    > consensual opinion on how service models should be interpreted as it was
    > expressed in your original statement but just a recompilation of possible
    > examples.
    
    OK, I'm talking as a co-author of 8309, and not as L2SM co-chair. 
    
    Why cannot we refer to it as the IETF community consensual opinion? Or is your point that I am misrepresenting the content of the document?
    
    Cheers,
    Adrian
    
    > Please consider my contribution for a modified text:
    > "RFC 8199 and RFC 8309 are informational documents developed by the IETF
    > community to show examples on how service models could be implemented."