[netmod] Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-13: (with DISCUSS)

Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 24 June 2026 12:32 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <178230437521.1326153.14792066840859966704@dt-datatracker-f9b87776f-xzl65>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 05:32:55 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: F7KX6TRGRMAHJBB3WIHFFPU6XMIWEDGK
CC: draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
Reply-To: Gunter Van de Velde <gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com>
Subject: [netmod] Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-13: (with DISCUSS)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/JaGgASXe5sx4SBDazMHXwcLG_q8>

Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-13: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Authors, WG,

# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for
draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-13.txt

# line numbers are rendered from the idnits tool found at
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-13.txt

# Many thanks for very expedited processing of all my comments and the 3
blocking DISCUSS's. Only a single DISCUSS remains. (Original Ballot:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/BtoCfErmFw8PwwD_etXl9GSasXE/)

# remaining DISCUSS positions (See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cgk1qyysYg9P_D-5DvGoSRYmc8k/)

[DISCUSS#1] The context and explanation from Mahesh helps to understand how
this textual in-accuracy was inherited from RFC9907. Knowing this aspect, I
agree that it is not fair to keep your document hostage (=blocked) with a
DISCUSS because the in-accuracy is in an inherited text from another document
that normatively mandates to use the not-accurate text. I'll clear the discuss
after understanding how OPS-ADS   @Mahesh
Jethanandani<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com> @Mohamed
Boucadair<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> intend to structurally resolve
the in-accuracy that slipped into RFC9907. The correct SSH transport RFC should
of been RFC 4253 (The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Layer Protocol) and not RFC
4252 (The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol). If this does not get
changed, then more and more drafts with a YANG module will end up having an
incorrect reference.

[DISCUSS#2] resolved and DISCUSS#2 considered closed

[DISCUSS#3] resolved and DISCUSS#3 considered closed

[netmod] Gunter Van de Velde's Discuss on draft-i… Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker