Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt-15.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>