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

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 B04FF129A9B; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 O-RyG-b1BrzW; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622D01294A2; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 07:25:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E9D17B3; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:03 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.205]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id 1PIAAUITZAQX; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BB520038; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oxM5Q7utsAI; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204320036; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 881DD3EB7610; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:04 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:04 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
Message-ID: <20170312142504.GA50980@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Mirja =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= <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
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
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] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-ietf-lmap-information-model-17=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:25:09 -0000

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/>