Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-23.txt> (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 26 November 2020 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866143A083F; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:55:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 SnRCu9SKh9gq; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D1C23A083E; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 0AQIskRh032217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:54:51 -0500
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 10:54:46 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
Cc: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, "spring-chairs@ietf.org" <spring-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20201126185446.GC34187@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160555515848.16672.7178345983262697681@ietfa.amsl.com> <5FB515F7.1020306@btconnect.com> <FE952290-CC70-4F30-8F22-6BC20D676FAB@cisco.com> <5FBCD392.3050706@btconnect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5FBCD392.3050706@btconnect.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/MOGvAF__JPSc9QFU207DU5V2eXs>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-23.txt> (YANG Data Model for Segment Routing) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 18:55:02 -0000

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:34:10AM +0000, tom petch wrote:
> On 23/11/2020 17:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >
> >      Examples are IPv4 only, IPv6 would be good
> >
> >      BGP is included when it comes to defining a router-id but is ignored
> >      everywhere else, such as signalling MSD, protocol extensions etc
> >
> >      reference "RFC XXXX" would be improved by including the title in all
> >      cases not just some
> >
> >      the scheme http: appears in many places.  It would be lovely if this
> >      really was the scheme but I fear that it is not
> > <acee>
> > This is directly from the RFC 8407 template in Appendix B. What would you suggest?
> 
> <tp>
> Many I-D do now specify https: since that is now the only option 
> supported by the IETF; I have seen this called for by an AD.

I think we have typically been using https: in recent RFCs, but we should
probably write a (very short) draft to update 8407 and the template
therein.

Any volunteers?

-Ben