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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Sun, 12 March 2017 14:25 UTC

Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:04 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <20170312142504.GA50980@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-information-model@ietf.org, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
References: <148916245108.6933.7329149063119506579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <148916245108.6933.7329149063119506579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/tqX95tD2ezcrqyA_yI_fAFvlc_0>
Cc: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, lmap-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-lmap-information-model@ietf.org, lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 08:14:11AM -0800, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be
> informational!

Because this is what the charter says.

  Jul 2014 - Submit the LMAP Information models I-D to the IESG for consideration as Standards track RFC

There are two data models implementing this information model, IETF's
YANG data model and BBF's data model. Does this qualify for standards
track? I don't know.

> 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)?

Options are passed to tasks, tags are not.

> - Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple
> ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!

Yes. A measurement task may send a packet train that allows to derives
different metrics (aka functions).

> - 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!

Why would this be important to have? I am familiar with at least one
bigger measurement infrastructure that does not have this. Note that
you can gate things via tasks, i.e., you setup sequential schedules
and if some gating is needed your first task in the schedule takes
care of the gating logic.

> - Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?

I think this is a stylistic question. Some like to read top-down, some
like to read bottom-up. The structure has been top-down since the
early days of the document and so far nobody reported an issue with
that.

> - 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?

The registry is mentioned a couple of times before section 3.10. See
in particular the 2nd paragraph in section 3.9.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

[lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ie… Mirja Kühlewind
Re: [lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draf… Juergen Schoenwaelder