Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt

"Jonathan Hansford" <jonathan@hansfords.net> Mon, 14 September 2015 09:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2AA1B5DC0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 J9h5L459dNUb for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailscan1.extendcp.co.uk (mailscan5.extendcp.co.uk [79.170.43.33]) (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 98ABE1B5D83 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 02:50:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailscanlb0.hi.local ([10.0.44.160] helo=mailscan6.hi.local) by mailscan-g66.hi.local with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <jonathan@hansfords.net>) id 1ZbQOs-0008NY-QS; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:50:14 +0100
Received: from mailscanlb0.hi.local ([10.0.44.160] helo=www.outitgoes.com) by mailscan6.hi.local with esmtps (UNKNOWN:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <jonathan@hansfords.net>) id 1ZbQOr-0005Vg-F3; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:50:14 +0100
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by webmail4.hi.local with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <jonathan@hansfords.net>) id 1ZbQOr-0001ux-7L; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:50:13 +0100
Message-Id: <086460742009f24c7cb566cc4652d26bc9dcd52b@webmail.hansfords.net>
From: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Atmail 6.6.0.11156
X-Originating-IP: 212.159.131.153
in-reply-to: <D218C74A.D7BAC%kwatsen@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:50:13 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_e80e6c8bbd86fa60e3b0054ff63a6b9d"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Authenticated-As: jonathan@hansfords.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/8ZwVdy5t91bRNIqvI4wz_OLe62A>
Subject: Re: [netmod] FW: New Version Notification for draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:50:27 -0000

Looking in from outside the current problem domain I'm not sure I'm
sufficiently informed to comment, however I have a couple of queries:

	* The requirements talk about both synchronous and asynchronous
systems (1(D), 3, 3(A)) but really only address the behaviour for
asynchronous systems. Would it not be worth clarifying the
relationship between the intended and applied configurations for
synchronous systems (i.e. they are the same), hence there is no need
for synchronous requirements equivalent to 1(D) and 3(A)?
	* Why does 7(A) limit the scope to IETF-defined modules of others are
now defining YANG modules?

Thanks,
Jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" 
To:"netmod@ietf.org" 
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:16:40 +0000
Subject:[netmod] FW: New Version Notification for
draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt

 The AD and chairs thought it best to formalize the consensus on the
 requirements a bit more. So we created the I-D listed below to track
and
 capture final consensus.

 Additionally, we want to use this GitHub issue tracker to track
issues:

 https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues

 Consistent with Tom's earlier email, we want to collect any issues
with
 these requirements before EOB Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5PM EST.
If
 you have an issue, in addition to posting it to the list, please
consider
 adding it to the GitHub tracker, and let people know you did so. Our
 goal is to close the issues as quickly as possible, some will go to
DEAD
 while others may remain OPEN, based on WG consensus.

 Thanks,
 Kent & Tom

 On 9/11/15, 5:36 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" 
 wrote:

 >
 >A new version of I-D, draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt
 >has been successfully submitted by Kent Watsen and posted to the
 >IETF repository.
 >
 >Name: draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs
 >Revision: 00
 >Title: NETMOD Operational State Requirements
 >Document date: 2015-09-11
 >Group: Individual Submission
 >Pages: 5
 >URL: 
 >https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.t
 >xt
 >Status: 
 >https://datatracker.ietforg/doc/draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs/
 >Htmlized: 
 >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00
 >
 >
 >Abstract:
 > This document captures consensus on operational state requirements
by
 > the NETMOD working group.
 >
 > 
 > 
 >
 >
 >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
 >submission
 >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 >
 >The IETF Secretariat
 >

 _______________________________________________
 netmod mailing list
 netmod@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod