IETF Logo Mail Archive

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 14:50 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 471FF12995B; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:34 -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 oo4x9mcnFpaO; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22e.google.com (mail-qt0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22e]) (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 7B8EE12949B; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id i34so132797118qtc.0; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:32 -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=t7L8Y0WdrrnAehv/Fo5azPyk5iSYddbylljlCHeLcdM=; b=CoT1xrkZIHqpREjVopqX+EqXg4PyoooKpccgfG4YrxUdGrBPC+MNcROi6YRV+vt8Jl rbddDAtPKpY0FGG064XxVI07jB6rEXdzLrm7kF8H22Xwe2XN79ZJP5OublN1+Jei05cw NUTFli02gzMFvm8rK9dyTzWQ+yrmARl9kCdO8YQoX9mesIJWc6X3oB/ByYD+5pT2LkrB dBqqZG2wnFLMjnSYmM1942TJSs8k1c1ynhnoAfDcmuKxyztwCBj7pMZBq9Dlivt52v7W vBUhIkcnOWHvFoJaJgqUfD/8GkMRWo3/O23DnQgCtNZ5ySwIywqSz4I5+Vis5xUWINjr jIBw==
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=t7L8Y0WdrrnAehv/Fo5azPyk5iSYddbylljlCHeLcdM=; b=RWjcjRf1FbDHBivYaFjCR+obLXWGEUGREVuZ7xDlzxZnwH1LF6ECx9PElg5IZ7lTB9 LOKHJPDjNe7P59SsNkGuUlEdUvoN1F0fGT8qUibubyzI9GqrHL3LRfdl5q4vm9FatOVD 1OG5Jb0EpcOlsbiJgD2TOzrwg6TTdTUceBrwQ3UCAKSiblwCRl+JKJHPRf3abtQ/iiiS +lhLp9uUcm4NUpde0c8HBMnutNyH6Y/yBinXjZqdwQQgvTu3ft/ClzH9IeddGeRCqPUe AczZ0hxiLsUOiWk7A2X6+CAFaPhTwY/g/OE410HuG5edNr/KXAtgHxGmHJOEp8XVERrt cMVA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0Adg+0+c9f8DhvywnS7Aw2bB9OYUIEDCncAKF0YjNWW1dyzgMTnTKIxO1RvD+qaOnzNaNgnPe5oKj1EQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.44.235 with SMTP id 40mr31799022qtx.178.1490107831505; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.41.170 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 07:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2F07EFC4-0C8D-47CD-8DB9-4FD267DD3CC0@cooperw.in>
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>
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:50:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFgnS4V=zssyC7eWSS1iZ8O6RKgYp+KK8HyKXzHyh7au5jNYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-yang@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135aaacf95a15054b3ec363"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/jmoMIVNGXUXp8jcoaKIFRlUcKYc>
Subject: Re: [lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-lmap-yang-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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 14:50:34 -0000

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:

>
> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 7:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email