Re: [lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Tue, 21 March 2017 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3191296FA for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 NVm9dLZnBQ67 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:11:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63BA4129A0F for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32364 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2017 16:04:33 +0100
Received: from nb-10510.ethz.ch (HELO ?82.130.103.143?) (82.130.103.143) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 21 Mar 2017 16:04:33 +0100
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <148916442967.6864.11561838065992971408.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20170314090649.GB54939@elstar.local> <0AEF216F-3B1D-46FE-96B5-38165D6C1308@kuehlewind.net> <20170320172731.GA33917@elstar.local> <2A9728CD-7ACA-4D49-A754-EC7A06070963@kuehlewind.net> <20170321064636.GA34900@elstar.local> <FBFBCEE9-D3E9-47B9-99B1-10A9C9831937@kuehlewind.net> <20170321115522.GA35872@elstar.local> <2F07EFC4-0C8D-47CD-8DB9-4FD267DD3CC0@cooperw.in> <CAFgnS4V=zssyC7eWSS1iZ8O6RKgYp+KK8HyKXzHyh7au5jNYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: lmap-chairs@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <7f7361e1-7ce5-d7fb-74c3-b73b5ca964d6@kuehlewind.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:04:32 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFgnS4V=zssyC7eWSS1iZ8O6RKgYp+KK8HyKXzHyh7au5jNYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/-U7QCg9l1w8JTdZjOk-0yIeC6jU>
Subject: Re: [lmap] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?lmap-yang-11=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:11:22 -0000

I cleared my discuss, so there is no obstacle here that blocks publication. I 
strongly agree with Benoit that this draft needs at least a normative 
reference to I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model. And similar as the reference to 
the information model, I had the feeling that you also need to read at least 
parts of RFC7594 to understand the terms, processes and goals in this 
document correctly. It's on you to decide. This is only my recommendation as 
a potential consumer. Not sure what your usual practice is but for normative 
reference the only question that relevant is: does the reader need to read 
the referenced document to fully understand the content of this document?

Mirja


On 21.03.2017 15:50, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in
> <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
>
>
>     > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
>     <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 09:11:09AM +0100, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
>     >> Hi Jürgen,
>     >>
>     >> thanks for you replies. I went back an had another look at the framework document which answered some of my questions. I guess the minimum you can do is to make the reference to RFC7594 normative (as well as the reference to I-D.ietf-lmap-information-model as Benoit mentioned in this comment). I guess without trying to
>     implement it, I will not be able to figure out if there is anything
>     missing or if I’m missing something and as such I will clear my discuss now.
>     >
>     > To me, it feels a bit strange to make RFC 7594 normative
>
>     I agree, there is nothing specified in RFC 7594 that needs to be
>     implemented in order for the YANG model to be implementable.
>
>     Alissa
>
>     > but if there
>     > is IESG consensus that RFC 7594 should be normative I will implement
>     > the change and hold my breath.
>     >
>
>
> My 2 agorot as WG co-chair: Making 7594 normative looks to me different that
> our usual practice for normative references, however, if this is the last
> obstacle between this document and its approval I would hold my breath as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> lmap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>