Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 22 February 2018 23:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EFBD126D73 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:06:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.53
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Og1F1cNV-L6F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1AAC126B6D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:06:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1492; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519340792; x=1520550392; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xmMRTQdl7v4ZogiIbZL70Pv/sele0dIvaax1X5fDaaA=; b=B7Ye1uHZugDXt6frs7QcxZQnibWOkteqfRNlh/oMXGvHBZR4gwCJjKay egfoD1eNvceH+ZYBgUDMvSU2qYVGMUFWYJYYql+G+PtlgHYatkzw7jBKW 2jczjlmZ2XkVcbkrJnLhKu1UL9Y+OBIlY7FDeGXyTW3fbAFXUH02lAJvd E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AzAwA7TI9a/5NdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNPgVYog2iYIYFQMoEWmGQKhTQCgi5XFQECAQEBAQEBAms?= =?us-ascii?q?ohSMBAQEDASMVTQQLFQECAgImAgJXBgEMBgIBAReKAAisBIInhQCDd4IZAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR+BD4QKgieBV4FnKYMFiDqCZQEEk2qQVQmWDow?= =?us-ascii?q?5iAuQDYgdgTw1I4FRMxoIGxWCfYUUIzeMaAEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,381,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="352435839"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Feb 2018 23:06:31 +0000
Received: from [10.82.171.153] ([10.82.171.153]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1MN6SgK026983; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:06:30 GMT
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <d4a73a00-dce2-2f11-29d0-0eb34920fd3f@cisco.com> <922E608D-951A-459A-B515-B53834C805C1@juniper.net> <022001d3aa6a$c31895e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <A8296BCA-A33F-44EB-AB94-706A7D4B5BE7@juniper.net> <070301d3abff$683091a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <90bdf9bc-2e13-8ed3-56d1-d7937f76381b@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:35:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <070301d3abff$683091a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6rNYiowjTPyWLpRyOGCR_NM5bKI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:06:34 -0000

On 2/22/2018 11:49 AM, t.petch wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "NETMOD Working Group"
> <netmod@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 5:06 PM
>>> Kent
>>>
>>> You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.
>>>
>>> The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams
>>> should be an Informative Reference.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the RFC Editor will not hold publication until an RFC
> number
>>> is assigned.
>>>
>>> Therefore, a note asking the I-D reference to be updated to reflect
> the
>>> assigned RFC number is null - the RFC can be published with the
>>> reference as an i-d and not as an RFC which is what I expect the RFC
>>> Editor to do.
>>>
>>> QED
>>
>> Except I know that this draft will be stuck in MISREF state and
> tree-diagrams
>> will in fact be assigned an RFC number by the time this draft is
> published.
>
> Kent
>
> Corner case:-)
Note that, for this corner case, the IESG agreed for the tree-diagrams 
to go through expedited processing.
Even if this is an informative reference, it's nicer to get an RFC as a 
reference.

Regards, Benoit

>
> You cannot know in general that drafts that appear as Informational
> References and which are referenced from within a YANG module will be
> published before the referencing I-D will be and so will have a RFC
> number which can be inserted by the RFC Editor.
>
>