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

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
>>
>>