IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.txt

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 18 December 2017 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 101F312D947 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:17:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 XbybKq1gqsYh for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:17:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55]) (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 E57EF12D945 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:17:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E7C6140641 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:17:08 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id nZH41w0142SSUrH01ZH7yi; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:17:08 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=G85sK5s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=ocR9PWop10UA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=WYlzy6alETi8PX4RoTkA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Hrh29MeFr4nADfVccKBs+1zzUqt1tN9LzDUqfBdxqbA=; b=lbdP+p6QZYbPlaBTXdT3Wz5LyV DMnle72kUquX8C95pfnNDnfFEE76yQ4s8MEbsv0pt04UdwS7of+ExJAuxEjZpJ27xInsnn+YvQg4q amATWmHbsQS6kuEHwcH5rNBPh;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:52404 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1eR2mW-0007lq-OP; Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:17:04 -0700
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, draft-ietf-netmod-entity@ietf.org, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <f4f96643-454a-a9a5-1747-735d2042c7f2@labn.net> <20171218200650.6bus7deydr3bxm2j@elstar.local> <34fba949-d502-38a0-00cb-49d1bba1d193@labn.net> <20171218.212201.175509717846279732.mbj@tail-f.com> <a9d3fe1a-4fcb-0ad7-7401-871641e9b3a8@labn.net> <20171218205644.zp27kn6qm5rqhr77@elstar.local> <CABCOCHS10U0ggKzrV=LgAuJPr_V06AHdLT3cYsGQ40BNyUjhDA@mail.gmail.com> <c4bb6118-391c-9644-a9e9-3353f28283b0@labn.net> <CABCOCHQtez2_-KdEgtKzSno8poOyzgXtdyx_uqNGYRWP4TdBtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <a8acdca0-8cc0-ab58-e322-a8783ad7bf90@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:17:03 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQtez2_-KdEgtKzSno8poOyzgXtdyx_uqNGYRWP4TdBtA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1eR2mW-0007lq-OP
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:52404
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 11
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/X0Xii6N3Ht_zBK2zhw_c7wDBr3Q>
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.txt
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: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:17:10 -0000


On 12/18/2017 4:11 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net
> <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
>
>     On 12/18/2017 04:01 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>     > <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
>     <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
>     > <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
>     <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 03:35:55PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
>     >     >
>     >     > Given the context (YANG module, and this WG), I think it
>     should be
>     >     > 6087bis (which is the same as 6087 in this respect).
>     >
>     >     Does RFC 6087 formally update RFC 3688?
>     >
>     >
>     > Not intentionally.
>     > The 3688 text  should probably be used instead of 6087bis.
>     >
>     yikes.  really? so you think rfc6087 and the netmod RFCs were wrong?
>
>
> Not wrong, but the more generic text applies to all WGs,
> not just NETMOD WG.  The YANG module contact info
> has the WG details. Since the NETMOD WG is long-lived,
> it may be better to list NETMOD WG.  It doesn't seem to matter
> since this info is not in the registry anyway.
>

Sigh.  Sounds like a useless line.  I guess the most important thing on
this inconsequential point is that we be consistent.  So, I guess this
means another update to 6087bis, I know you have one in the works in any
case.  How about publishing this change and other's that have been
discussed on the list so that we can all see the current state.  I'll
push submit on entity and we can always update it during IESG processing
if needed...

Thanks,
Lou

...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email