Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23: (with DISCUSS)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 30 April 2019 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 93A6B1202DF; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:25:38 -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, SPF_PASS=-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 dxfevAopvhds; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93AFE12008D; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x3UGPROh014806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:25:30 -0400
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 11:25:27 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190430162527.GI60332@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <155655963180.15870.3650019434718355043.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <717530026d2d4af0a92c318ecbdbb4bd@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20190429182503.GC60332@kduck.mit.edu> <94d0b3e325ee46e283d84204243bdf69@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <HE1PR0701MB252211756FBD659082FABFF6953A0@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <cce7511973da40f69f642f6e70bf8844@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cce7511973da40f69f642f6e70bf8844@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/nxJPDIdUi5yHI7jTpsWFHftzNoU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23: (with DISCUSS)
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, 30 Apr 2019 16:25:39 -0000

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 04:21:31PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> > From: Magnus Westerlund, April 30, 2019 4:32 AM
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I think it should be avoided if possible to add the pre-5378 boilerplate, it is better
> > to get the rights. Especially in this situation where there has been many version
> > published stating that the rights have been had. Is there a problem of getting the
> > rights?
> 
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> Here is the current status...
> 
> There are no full sentences from RFC-5277 used in this document.  However there are a few sentence fragments in the terminology, as well as quite a few concepts adopted based on RFC5277.  On the basis of that Benjamin's DISCUSS however, it felt like we should err on the side of caution by adding his suggestion.  
> 
> Along with this, at the end of 2016 the original authors of RFC-5277 (Sharon & Hector) stated they no longer needed to be on this draft.  I haven't been in contact with them since.  So without a relationship here, it seemed like the including the "pre5378Trust200902" text was again erring on the side of caution.

To be clear, I don't have any favored resolution I'm trying to push, here
(though Magnus' point is fairly compelling) -- I was just noting the
cross-document disparity and, in the absence of a note explaining it in the
shepherd writeup(s), wondering how to bring the documents in line with each
other.  If we think that the pre-5378 boilerplate is not actually needed
here and have explictly thought about the question, I am happy to accept
that as well.

-Ben