Re: [lmap] changing draft-ietf-lmap-restconf to Informational (was: Re: draft-ietf-lmap-restconf status and way forward)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Tue, 27 June 2017 11:42 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 3B61A129AC4 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 04:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 oSbzSlosUJ_t for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 04:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B124129ABE for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 04:41:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09008E90; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:58 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id msamls8d0E_G; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:55 +0200 (CEST)
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 atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F812009F; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmpY6vOpbtOV; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFFC2009B; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 82F503FD3E5D; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:52 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:41:52 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>, "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170627114152.GA4350@elstar.local>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "Carey, Timothy (Nokia - US)" <timothy.carey@nokia.com>, "lmap@ietf.org" <lmap@ietf.org>
References: <CAFgnS4WqBXSCsAK3F_q_BafUpQgq6QNTbg2vSnxBa0SrQxDy5g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFgnS4WqBXSCsAK3F_q_BafUpQgq6QNTbg2vSnxBa0SrQxDy5g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/xqYmBJYO4bmJyFolONusXws7Jl4>
Subject: Re: [lmap] changing draft-ietf-lmap-restconf to Informational (was: Re: draft-ietf-lmap-restconf status and way forward)
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, 27 Jun 2017 11:42:02 -0000

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:23:19PM +0300, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I believe that the change of draft-ietf-lmap-restconf from Standards Track
> to Informational deserves more attention and discussion.
> 
> As WG chair I would like to remind that the WG is chartered to deliver 'The
> Control protocol and the associated data model' and 'The Report protocol
> and the associated data model', and that these two items were marked
> 'Standards Track' since the WG was chartered. For these purpose we ran a
> protocol evaluation, compared the existing solutions and decided that
> RESTCONF and YANG are the most appropriate solution for both the control
> and the report protocol. Changing now the intended status would mean that
> there will be no full standards-track solution for the control protocol and
> for the report protocol.

This is incorrect since there are two standards-track protocols that
can be used with the standards-track LMAP data model.
 
> The P in LMAP stands for Protocol.

The charter says "Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (lmap)".

> Maybe the YANG data models are
> sufficient, but I would like to make sure that the significance of this
> change is understood by all WG participants, and by the potential users in
> the operators space, the BBF and IEEE 802.16, and other organizations that
> expressed interest in LMAP.
> 
> So, please, express your opinions. Maybe a formal consensus call in the WG
> and communication with the BBF and IEEE 802.16 is needed.

There is no normative standards-track content in the I-D (assuming
client configuration will be done in NETCONF). I do not see what the
alternatives are, creating a new protocol for the sake of having a
protocol or labeling a document as a protocol definition even though
there is nothing normative in the document? Well, if the chairs think
a formal consensus call is needed, simply execute one. As document
editor, I would appreciate more document content reviews. ;-)

/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/>