Re: [lmap] changing draft-ietf-lmap-restconf to Informational (was: Re: draft-ietf-lmap-restconf status and way forward)

[Dan Romascanu <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

See in-line.

Regards,

Dan


On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I believe that the change of draft-ietf-lmap-restconf from Standards
> Track
> > to Informational deserves more attention and discussion.
> >
> > As WG chair I would like to remind that the WG is chartered to deliver
> 'The
> > Control protocol and the associated data model' and 'The Report protocol
> > and the associated data model', and that these two items were marked
> > 'Standards Track' since the WG was chartered. For these purpose we ran a
> > protocol evaluation, compared the existing solutions and decided that
> > RESTCONF and YANG are the most appropriate solution for both the control
> > and the report protocol. Changing now the intended status would mean that
> > there will be no full standards-track solution for the control protocol
> and
> > for the report protocol.
>
> This is incorrect since there are two standards-track protocols that
> can be used with the standards-track LMAP data model.
>

I am not sure whether two protocols is what was expected from the WG.
Certainly not according to the charter. We need at least an applicability
statement, IMO.



>
> > The P in LMAP stands for Protocol.
>
> The charter says "Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap)".
>

I stand corrected.



>
> > Maybe the YANG data models are
> > sufficient, but I would like to make sure that the significance of this
> > change is understood by all WG participants, and by the potential users
> in
> > the operators space, the BBF and IEEE 802.16, and other organizations
> that
> > expressed interest in LMAP.
> >
> > So, please, express your opinions. Maybe a formal consensus call in the
> WG
> > and communication with the BBF and IEEE 802.16 is needed.
>
> There is no normative standards-track content in the I-D (assuming
> client configuration will be done in NETCONF). I do not see what the
> alternatives are, creating a new protocol for the sake of having a
> protocol or labeling a document as a protocol definition even though
> there is nothing normative in the document? Well, if the chairs think
> a formal consensus call is needed, simply execute one. As document
> editor, I would appreciate more document content reviews. ;-)
>

I believe that we need at least an applicability statement pointing to
RESTCONF as the normative solution for LMAP. IMO this statement was
implicit as long as draft-ietf-lmap-restconf is Standards Track. Making it
Informational leads to the need to write something else, or change the
scope in the charter.

More document content reviews would certainly be welcome.




>
> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>