Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-15.txt
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 30 April 2014 19:50 UTC
Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 0243A1A0972 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 1fQkZaWg24wN for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578121A095F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88607FAB; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.220]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id brBkkEq6BLoc; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C35020017; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xklX__jPKtPV; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D51220013; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 41F2B2CC704D; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 21:49:51 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20140430194951.GC31986@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <20140429071743.11894.21006.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CF859937.6B5B6%kwatsen@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CF859937.6B5B6%kwatsen@juniper.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/kjcDSAElOTLeVfH-7RVSk9QcKdY
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-15.txt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 30 Apr 2014 19:50:03 -0000
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:23:16AM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > > I noticed this draft up for Last Call again and yet the issues raised here > haven¹t been addressed yet: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08848.html > > Now I see that we have another go at a Last Call for this draft, can we > please fix these issue this time? It doesn¹t make sense to have these > things configured in the netconf-server-model draft... > Kent, the process is somewhat like this (a bit simplified): a) WG works on a document does WG last calls to determine the WG is done an happy with the result b) Work is submitted to the IESG and the responsible AD initiates an IETF last call to check that the larger IETF community is fine with the result produced by the WG c) The IESG members review the documents (and the IETF last call comments) and IESG members can raise DISCUSSes that require to discuss whether there is an issue preventing the publication of the document The main reason why we have a second IETF last call is the fact that we have a normative reference to a document that is not on the standards track and this was not properly spelled out in the first IETF last call - so we are essentially fixing a procedural error. Of course, since there is another IETF last call, you can raise an issue during this second IETF last call if you believe the document is not ready. So much about the process. Taking the process aside, we did receive several comments of the form "why does the data model not also cover XYZ" during the IESG review phase and we consistently answered that trying to cover everything means we will never finish this data model and that we (the chairs) believe the current scope has WG consensus and that it is time to get this published, implemented, and deployed. We do expect revisions and / or extensions of the data model based on experience we gain. You can find the history of this document here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt/history/ It took us about two years from the WG -00 version to IESG submission and almost three years from Andy's original I-D. I am strongly in favour of publishing what we have. Note that it is possible both to revise data models and to augment them and we kind of expect this to happen with the core system data model. So keep this in mind when you think about the issue. Are we having an issue that renders the current version unusable or is this just one of the many additions one can imagine but which may as well go into a future revision or augmentation of the data model? In the later case, I prefer to not pull this document out of the IESG back into the WG. /js PS: Note that it took 8 months from the initial submission of an individual I-D for the RFC 6021 revision to IESG approval (with 4 months since WG -00 version). It is well possible to revise a data model within a year should there be a need. PS: I personally do not believe that the user authentation objects in the sytem draft need configuration of certifications and trust anchors. -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
- [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgm… internet-drafts
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system… Kent Watsen