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

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 15:16 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 17820129A30; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kT5DxFK5MFL0; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (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 ABD99129A23; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id x35so133064959qtc.2; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
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=z9D8/V7kCDnp67XrsfbwWaSCQiah0yFealhKqErqvKE=; b=krcdxMYGxUhtVjfz3BzOEOE+p6523hcfAvWza/VgPfLvjVEqBsFn5a46VMAL06lfMF ahq3NDQ1k5EUS7M+1yG7rosxgB0bBShslVHV0e0V8ZIiZokXpNJq9Rkg9gPlRBev1z4T UKd4tRZRsfkm90EGIPRSIJ0wsEIX08Wl5M/9exZDUT00pgMGS5k9F5DiIY3zwlDudBLc RuX8E6H8/6lU3zFBBmK4lCt7tt+3lfYrKK2zxxheefowz8+GUUZU2EaQrvTPqgYwJGON lcNvvjX9AWJXSSuINbG6YN39oyNsuPTOeyQyEf8MRs4PQx715bAUAoEQ0WW39ZqnTIg+ DScw==
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=z9D8/V7kCDnp67XrsfbwWaSCQiah0yFealhKqErqvKE=; b=PI8zBX3Oxuqa9aQBi0HINvvXp0R4wdCMGlEw1kQ0DjT9rzKGAVGYYTC/Yg5SmtEqVg 0XgWvBVOlIOTygRxkZIGaAz2h3IBKE/n+FhLrALoFCUI9SVCJsHBmxgxiKi0aiPct7GT Atclvpwjzr7w8gT48/IboGbjcVihD2zljiV9M1CtjkX4CEm6H7fCq1hW9e59us1DDN61 vpt3Ym7XaBQV0Q38uQL0WlCiAl1lFUUhsF+s/wjYMB7/Uj5dv056RZbtXIJde32ftGx0 v4UokjlfSOjWhCVyzjXf5/y+FmT4MHP0OXVLXIWmkPk8Q74JxhYixNZmRVMegig+eG78 QTxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0JYsW/y9FMlAUNP0SsttbF9ZK7xi4Hyc9Ef7cZjm+rsTbMmnXoi5YPM55buO/R5pykrzr5fVk8lyw6uQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.51.199 with SMTP id d7mr31633450qtb.94.1490109359581; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:15:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.41.170 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7f7361e1-7ce5-d7fb-74c3-b73b5ca964d6@kuehlewind.net>
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> <7f7361e1-7ce5-d7fb-74c3-b73b5ca964d6@kuehlewind.net>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:15:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4X1yC_bGYaqteCXuckvcY47CXe8Xz3SZNG0=D87A5QWeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114541de0e1abf054b3f1f09
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/Uta1EtG4mGl49DZDzyWRIxaM3lw>
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 15:16:04 -0000

Thanks for clearing, Mirja.

I actually agree with your statement about normative references, but I
believe that the relationship of this document with the informational
framework RFC is different than the relationship with the information model
mentioned in Benoit's comment.

Regards,

Dan


On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>