IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft

Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Wed, 16 December 2015 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
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 8668A1B2D6A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 05:07:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 HQqZdanuMEvY for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 05:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [64.71.170.115]) (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 BF4511B2D5B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2015 05:07:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lucidvision.com; s=default; t=1450271247; bh=nJbG5zUQKzrbT3sf06fxL2tGc3aZ4t+ppUIO0Fl3kI0=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Xf6MzLOCvRq4GJuitZR09gPDWvfkzHCtJP2+Mx3dTbfKzidqMXO8wmwWhjO1S6bGc VFiw129ObbSJaDkx/TVqVuk6NDtCNuPodoi/r1eUPCjWGwb9EXuzX6y6xdh0ABCn0z Utcd+kg42BYT+lDZxJulY/SrUfbsHJ7VlTpzwNLo=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=75.67.110.86;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
From: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <5671271D.40603@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:07:54 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2489AF1E-0DB4-456C-8D74-8B02BDF41E97@lucidvision.com>
References: <0C987A22-5602-438D-B42D-82C8476AA513@lucidvision.com> <23D79879-556D-4523-8CAB-845C10BC76CC@nic.cz> <5671271D.40603@cisco.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
X-Authenticated-User: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=2 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=0 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=75.67.110.86
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 0, First 0, in=2, out=0, spam=0 Known=true ip=75.67.110.86
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/yvRTbQDUqzslWS8URgsosVwwpZM>
Cc: netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as NETMOD WG draft
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 13:07:57 -0000

> On Dec 16, 2015:3:55 AM, at 3:55 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
>>> On 15 Dec 2015, at 13:34, Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 	NETMOD:
>>> 
>>> 	The Broadband Forum and the members of the design team who worked on the
>>> IETF Entity module have asked that the working group considerthe ietf-entity YANG module
>>> (currently https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-entitydt-netmod-entity/ which is
>>> still in individual draft status) as a working group item.
>>> 
>>> 	Should we move to adopt draft-entitydt-netmod-entity as a WG item and
>>> correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by
>>> Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will
>>> gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
> Support.
>> I would strongly prefer to finish the existing items first, or at least the critical ones on which other work depends. Adding more items would mean that both old and new items receive less attention on the average. We already have at most one or two reviews per WGLC, and this is IMO insufficient.
> While I understand the concern of work prioritization, one of the issues in NETMOD is that we need to grow the number of people involved in participating/editing/reviewing, and I'm happy to see Dan and Jimmy taking the lead here.
> 
> Regards, Benoit

	Are you speaking as AD or as an individual?

	—Tom


>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>>> 	—Tom
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email