Re: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 07 March 2018 16:02 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 3F4AD129C56; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, 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 70qPjecdRIQX; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:02:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A13A129C70; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 08:02:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2585; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520438565; x=1521648165; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PqCQRwi+KVaTwZsdRKLP8NFEdPkAT/CqrH98aYTjQ6k=; b=aF/yDieWG5UVUbINHAGyEMOVHkbvAsq82agj2ZNWpq4q3xIE9VWGdNYk Siwhhtq6Zpx0sNgiUTCjHSWvKcTQWfep/TmEvy6n49upHdHQuSL++aeLQ LWPkVbmgQHllbB0uWZdudoMsz42UyenDoCprUAUSoEIlikMRPam/igevT 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B4AQDxC6Ba/xbLJq1eGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQ2cCiDVIsYjmKBPZQ0FIIBChgLhD5PAoMrNhYBAgEBAQEBAQJ?= =?us-ascii?q?rJ4UkAgQBASEVNgsQCw4MAiYCAicwBgEMBgIBAYUXEKhhgieEcoNyghwFgQ+EI?= =?us-ascii?q?oQFgWYpDIJ4gy4BAQECAYE6ARIBgyqCYgSGCIIbkkQJhlSGM4NxB4FnhDeCeIV?= =?us-ascii?q?kiX6BTIYNgS4kATFhWBEIMxoIGxU6gkOCY4FmPzcBiU6COgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,436,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="2437972"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Mar 2018 16:02:42 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w27G2gxd017727; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 16:02:42 GMT
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org
References: <152042327035.17585.18187058765530652581.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <39a2f231-3845-9d50-e7b7-4c30de71040d@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 17:02:42 +0100
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: <152042327035.17585.18187058765530652581.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
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/IcbVtLBSM_8Uzee15zXyzhphJ18>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 16:02:48 -0000

Hi Alvaro,
> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) This sentence in the Introduction caught my attention: "This document
> defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track documents containing
> YANG...data models."    The Abstract extends to say that "Applicable portions
> may be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model documents."
>
> I don't remember a non-Standards Track document off the top of my head [*], but
> I'm sure the guidelines apply to any IETF document containing a module.  Is
> that true?
In my mind, yes. I don't see why we would make a distinction.
I believe the text should be improved.

As history, this sentence is a cut/paste from RFC6087.
>
> I see, for example, that in 4.1 (Module Naming Conventions) it is clear how
> modules published by the IETF should be named...and a note is included about
> what other SDOs might do.  Are there cases where the guidelines are only
> applicable to Standards Track documents, but would not apply to other IETF
> documents?
I don't think so.

Regards, B.
>
> This may be a nit, but I think it is good to close this door before the
> justification for non-compliance starts being the Status of a document.
>
> [*] I do remember the IESG talking about whether a document with a module for
> an Experimental protocol should be in the Standards Track or not.  IMHO, what
> matters is for the module to be used (i.e. correct, implementable, implemented,
> etc.) and not the status of the document it is in.
>
> (2) The second paragraph in 2.1. (Requirements Notation) is not needed: "RFC
> 2119 language...as if it were describing best current practices."  This
> document is now a BCP.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>