Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 17 November 2017 00:01 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 585551273E2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:01:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, 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 mBbqxJPZCK58 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:01:22 -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 95C7B126DED for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F341214130E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:41 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id anie1w00W2SSUrH01nihAf; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:41 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=H76r+6Qi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=sC3jslCIGhcA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=eO7wzvSnhovw2FUgVcEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG: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=IooCkLhidkIzkDx0JXVMnnyPXVpZnQ34HfloJqOixS4=; b=LNMB+42qECL+GAwrLyYiaVqu/m KK1CCaCvj0073hMascDDCumcNjwa4+1YKFfjjsMB9Vw0P6U7/baGoMWH6pn1GbVbOfyPn78PFQqya 224pFe+UtWGSqZ+ziWOvwp5fd;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:59542 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1eFTnq-002a3B-Hj; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:42:38 -0700
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, 'Mahesh Jethanandani' <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, 'Robert Wilton' <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
References: <20171115.101454.1576716701146734257.mbj@tail-f.com> <bb0f2cf8-ca46-21af-02cd-79970a08db7e@cisco.com> <0696749C-0E80-40CC-9905-BD8187CB6D78@gmail.com> <014a01d35e87$98797950$c96c6bf0$@gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <00143927-dc4d-5db8-e3ce-dbd56366a06c@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 07:42:33 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <014a01d35e87$98797950$c96c6bf0$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: 1eFTnq-002a3B-Hj
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]:59542
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 13
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/itCkAHJhHMsk3VzmLb6JacNToGc>
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:01:24 -0000

To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
(a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines" 
wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
(b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of 
the current tree related guidelines
(c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for 
"the most current guidelines"
(d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams 
document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki

Does this sound right?

Lou
(as tree co-author)

On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
>> Jethanandani
>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
>> To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
>>
>> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
>> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
>> guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore
>> would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of
>> reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
>> them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
>>>
>>> I think that it was along the lines of ...
>>>
>>> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
>> guidelines is available on a wiki at ....
>>>
>>> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest
>> version of the guidelines draft.
>>>
>>> 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or MEF be
>> using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC until
>> 6087bis is actually republshed?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
>>>> tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
>>>> tree diagram document.
>>>>
>>>> Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
>>>> or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
>>>> publish all guidelines as a wiki?
>>>>
>>>> If it is the former, is it really worth it?
>>>>
>>>> Advantages with a wiki:
>>>>
>>>>    +  It can be updated more easily
>>>>
>>>> Some drawbacks:
>>>>
>>>>    -  It can be updated more easily
>>>>       (meaning they are less stable)
>>>>
>>>>    -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
>>>>       easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
>>>>       we've tried to maintain over the years.
>>>>
>>>>    -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
>>>>       As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
>>>>       RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
>>>>
>>>>    -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
>>>>       (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
>>>>       is understandable; that's the published version).
>>>>
>>>>    -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
>>>> sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to
>>>> this document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out
>>>> over several documents that are difficult to find.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /martin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>