Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 05 January 2021 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE793A101E; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:55:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 DUUbChScBGNy; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F385E3A0E72; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:54:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F1F56092B; Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:54:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <EDCE0C8D-5C6E-4568-9959-8EBF980BF254@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D68556C4-4373-4298-A537-E21D154F16BE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 11:54:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248D98654D5B4F82DFFAB31A0D10@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "lsr-chairs@ietf.org" <lsr-chairs@ietf.org>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
References: <A558D79B-4067-482E-8405-C07A054EF6E1@chopps.org> <AM7PR07MB6248D98654D5B4F82DFFAB31A0D10@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/s9cN95AMAiaDEuMlwm5LIC7pOSg>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2021 16:55:01 -0000


> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
> <tp>
> 
> Object, strongly.
> 
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text related to that module.
> 
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
> 
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge whether or not the YANG is suitable.
> 
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are listed as Informative.
> 
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  Informational.
> 
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to considering a WGLC on this document. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>