[lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Fri, 10 March 2017 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietf.org
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163A9129661; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:14:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.47.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148916245108.6933.7329149063119506579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:14:11 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/_WlMAO5kyjUIXIoVApX1xPt2OFM>
Cc: dromasca@gmail.com, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lmap-information-model@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
Subject: [lmap] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-lmap-information-model-17=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:14:11 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-information-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be
informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see ma-report-result-tags) ?
And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?
- Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple
ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!
- Sec 3.7.: "There is no mechanism to prioritise one schedule over
another or to mutex scheduled tasks."
  Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important
to have!
- Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?
- The regristry concept is rather unclear to me as it suddently shows up
in section 3.10. Especially what's a role in this context
(ma-registry-role)? Example?