IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] LMAP: time to declare success ... ?

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Wed, 14 February 2018 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.com>
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 8B4F3126579 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.739
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 IvKzLaYKIGcN for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C55E124234 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d26so5989975qtj.4 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZvXAEhg6AszzXg/sBvMeeAG+CEOi9WcLPIsdhPAckEA=; b=jxCQIoCLjr0Rb/AxZXY94Cku5yragnM3cqjt61aQ4rlQKFcXHNh+m4l8ij079/OzYP xEuLvL/uFioMb6K926E7CKtqQfLF7MaVbfSLHXQk5X+rEjBb0NYWyaW3Rx5XsebUrsea F4KdTg4nHgM8CZkaqGIkKThkSrKVkcUv+lldBz/aNxzP56VsSqmYnGSu6l98HlP+SkYi 2FwE16CRO1R1P+fcRbHdYJkcKftUd8cLKV7T765FIqFtBv8KwyGLFnhf5kdsTQBjqSn7 Yz1Mc44/D7MsoZM7IF+FGBIKZagzEjdLWXE5nTSOGs/O2D526mL3YaLXqIeBFiBcUmyO 2r5Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZvXAEhg6AszzXg/sBvMeeAG+CEOi9WcLPIsdhPAckEA=; b=Lj/v5+/lw78lX9Cr56uDDJRdtWcFE395HxkqnW0o+jjL5ivIRkxUoiGFCERaTjLg5W tlAGROTxiFKA5EhLjEC2w71SGSqW8mKcB29sg94JUE3xgA1aGuXS2BG+tV7OaMM8055n D0RceUVXj69Sb6E31FveprxGRgdfGmxaTvyqY8o3ILlx+JTXACcG9YAjxyAjGbGizSMi SAIuIgzKGG91kx59YA2883HFIdJ7a0tVn8WOYKFMUsg4LDDojt2jz0wcUpIdmtjRsvb0 u9Ynbt9fU/O2CxohBh0fcraQFbKB5/1P2j1G1Ud5bZpdUYTblyPtI42h15iyHsd3/UmO Yumg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCSwAVRx8RpZBULYZAxlgBx+RKUwd9PIKojU3YCRcMRKVPD82oV O1YY6grJM3gMQykdAPLdAJhmxqA4tDHKx64VYMo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226WZ+E4P71eH+C66mlHGpdDIrLM2RXQ6Ddu7/bHpCyKKyTh2tVO8HT+Dby+g0QzYihEvHrTLDo64nP5624DNKQ=
X-Received: by 10.200.70.10 with SMTP id p10mr7433310qtn.5.1518613526703; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.23.147 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 05:05:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9b11d4cf-740a-e942-6359-e7a727e43600@cisco.com>
References: <f3e7abc7-493a-5d9f-6eb1-89f3a553e8e6@cisco.com> <20180203165418.5sg3dtqcjfuawk6v@elstar.local> <CAFgnS4XsoiyFFpHGNqR36=NRk9uTBdCFWzYO9=OuatT4iSREbA@mail.gmail.com> <9b11d4cf-740a-e942-6359-e7a727e43600@cisco.com>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:05:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4VqrhTYHOvOzbBaM4XLXS6zF0EQGAwJKmjQKfLPG1_j+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4f5e80caf10cf724905652bc37a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/SZ5nO7xEs0MY2VWDwxRUEK6ECck>
Subject: Re: [lmap] LMAP: time to declare success ... ?
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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 13:05:29 -0000

Hi Benoit,

Actually the WG made a choice also related to the protocol to associate
with YANG for LMAP - RESTCONF. The role of draft-ietf-lmap-restconf was to
document this choice and detail the specifics.

Just to be clear, I am personally fine with closing the WG. I believe that
in order to really complete the charter we need to approve and publish
draft-ietf-lmap-restconf to RFC. If the WG closes this can be done better
IMO in opsawg. It would be good to mention this in the WG closing message.

Regards,

Dan


On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> "declaring success?" was an image to mean "shall we close the WG?"
>
> If my memory serves me well... At charter time (in 2013!), there were
> discussions regarding the data models and specific protocols. YANG was not
> necessary a given or even a goal. When specifying a YANG data model, that
> simplified the choice of associated protocols.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not believe that we can really declare success without having
> completed one of the key goals of our charter. My opinion is that
> draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt needs to be done. We may be able to do it
> without keeping the WG active. If the WG closes, my preference would be
> OPSAWG rather than Independent Stream.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> >
>> > The charter speaks about the control and report protocols.
>> > draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt, now expired, describes in 7 pages how
>> > RESTCONF can be used with a YANG data model for LMAP.
>> >
>> > Is it time to declare success and move on?
>> > Unless there are spectacular activities in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I'll
>> take
>> > action before stepping down as AD.
>> >
>> > Note that publishing draft-ietf-lmap-restconf could still proceed in the
>> > Independent Submission Stream, if there is some future energy to do so.
>>
>> draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt depends on the NETCONF/RESTCONF
>> configuration drafts done in the NETCONF WG; these NETCONF I-Ds have
>> not been moving because people put priority on getting NMDA out of the
>> door.
>>
>> Since nobody seems to be pushing for getting
>> draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt done, it might be OK to just let it
>> go.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 <%2B49%20421%20200%203587>         Campus Ring 1
>> | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 <%2B49%20421%20200%203103>         <
>> https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> lmap mailing list
>> lmap@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email