Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 13 September 2017 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48581241F3 for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=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 Px12b23__KYi for <l3sm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56C2A132D14 for <l3sm@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 06:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13945; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505308297; x=1506517897; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=7PvUnYC9uy2NOeRWjovEk4BvuKxsTAx9dXvLVJ1VOPw=; b=eRsY8+arCJ/YscwiSFTFz0WKybgO1tpgehV4oVze2MG3+Cs7e2Z2PB/0 bLemFaCWpinXkKD9T2/OxI51u+npIL1Eo6NRarsuN9YfDdM9m/n4V8q0o osZF0QnLm0kn+LI2WwPbEU/Bm2pn+R8mKC/Z6d231bzofwJGbjWOH2A3L o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,388,1500940800"; d="scan'208,217";a="654590812"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Sep 2017 13:11:35 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8DDBUHM019180; Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:11:30 GMT
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, David Ball <daviball@cisco.com>, "Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" <jlindbla@cisco.com>
Cc: l3sm <l3sm@ietf.org>, adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AAFC86C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <b85886fa-7f8f-3e56-a8cb-7d72c4828fba@cisco.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AB0DDDD@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <B5B3032C-A0CB-4BD0-9497-191F2554F723@cisco.com> <a1067e3b-3d3c-e964-70ab-5432663a69f8@cisco.com> <9e9c1527-08a9-bcef-c463-892bd9ed2f87@cisco.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AB1404C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <6f5c8753-2521-924a-fcac-998b9d7801c2@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:11:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9AB1404C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------0F974E1237D3720DAF5E831C"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/5wjQU8DOZTQcJ7eSoCttRNrARCY>
Subject: Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
X-BeenThere: l3sm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: L3VPN Service YANG Model discussion group <l3sm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/l3sm/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3sm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3sm>, <mailto:l3sm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:11:40 -0000

And the IETF LC has been requested.

Regards, Benoit.
>
> Update done now.
>
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03&url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04
>
> -Qin
>
> *发件人:*Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
> *发送时间:*2017年9月12日21:13
> *收件人:*David Ball; Jan Lindblad (jlindbla); Qin Wu
> *抄送:*l3sm; adrian
> *主题:*Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for 
> draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt
>
> Dear all,
>
> I was about the click the "IETF LC" call button, but I understand from 
> Qin that a new document version will be produced.
> I'll then click this button when the next version is posted.
>
> Regards, B.
>
>     Completely agree.  In the case in question
>     (address-allocation-type leaves), no value means "IPv4/IPv6 is not
>     enabled for this site-network-access".
>
>         David
>
>     On 12/09/2017 07:54, Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) wrote:
>
>         Qin, team,
>
>              *
>
>
>                 For the address-allocation-type leaves, I saw you
>                 removed the default (as agreed) but also added
>                 'mandatory true' (which was not discussed).  Making
>                 these leaves mandatory does not address the problem -
>                 if anything, it makes it worse.  (Issue 15 from draft-02)
>
>             [Qin]: Fine to me, it looks we need to seek balance
>             between making all parameters mandatory and making all
>             parameters optional. I hope Jan will be happy with these
>             changes.
>
>         Sometimes mandatory true is needed to make a sane model, but
>         mandatory elements also tend to make a model clunky, examples
>         large etc. So I generally like optional elements. The problem
>         with optional elements is people tend to forget that it may
>         not be obvious what a system is supposed to do when there is
>         no value specified. Adding a default or text in the
>         description is therefore important. At the end of the day,
>         we're writing a contract. For interoperability to happen,
>         there must be no holes in the contract that are open to
>         (differing) interpretation.
>
>         So sure, you can have optional elements (this should even be
>         the normal case), and they don't need to have a default
>         statement. But if so, *describe* what it means; what the
>         system is supposed to do. No value is also a value.
>
>         Best,
>
>         /jan
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     David Ball
>
>     <daviball@cisco.com>; <mailto:daviball@cisco.com>
>