Re: [netconf] Adoption request//FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators-09.txt

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Tue, 05 November 2019 00:20 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016e38eecc54-1c213e7a-4062-4328-91d9-525a75dac5ff-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD9412009E; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:20:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 EYVuk6VF7Yuc; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:20:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E98120041; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:20:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1572913204; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=XhgVgAIQQlGj8dczZEz0pTb0+BfrocO8TKgw5nF8Y0M=; b=bYqV8i80UFAlUh4v9Wgzr+oJBOJPzsZ3gK4fxQZF7cy8HdcoLlr2J0hgsFViBrgu 8+dCyWCTyMOG/o0gDQ79jJ6av9Zg4dTVeLKUT8tpAC364wDC/lpBN1BtjwtVKWVMO08 CTeWPhsldvfPS1VxO0hPdOTJCG4VU59SruE4kl7I=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100016e38eecc54-1c213e7a-4062-4328-91d9-525a75dac5ff-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED10FF82-35B2-4166-9560-D9C74B107AA3"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:20:04 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF077A82@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Cc: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators <draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <157250161429.32624.10183459345808600687.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BF077A82@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.11.05-54.240.8.88
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/MBFTV9VhQ_9WXUOKwP3wOVQ2dAQ>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption request//FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators-09.txt
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:20:08 -0000

All, and Tianran.

The chairs have been working closely with the authors for the last week in trying to make improvements to this draft prior to agreeing to initiate an adoption poll.  Our primary concern has been, and continues to be so, that the draft doesn't clearly specify the problem statement, while describing perhaps too many implementation-level details.

We understand that adoptions of a draft is just a starting point for the WG to develop the draft from.  However, without a clear problem statement, it is difficult to discern what is scope the draft.  In particular, we perceive this draft as enabling clients to 1) discover how many line cards there are and 2) determine the "message-generator-id" for each (however 'each' is mapped).  Additionally, we feel that this draft's claim to defining a distributed logging architecture is overreaching, as distributed Syslog-based implementations have existed for years.  

What does the WG think?   The chairs are cognizant that such questions may be sussed out in the course of an adoption poll, but felt the need the WG to focus on this particular point first.  We would welcome the WG to discuss this point on list before the 106 meeting.

Kent and Mahesh



> On Nov 2, 2019, at 5:02 AM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> We just updated the draft to address some more clarification questions.
> I think it’s ready as the starting point for working group discussion.
> We request the adoption call.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tianran