Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 08 December 2017 01:04 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 7CA7F12762F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:04:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 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, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, 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 bjtRKDlbpikF for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:04:42 -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 76C43129469 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:04:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A034214055F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 18:04:39 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id jD4b1w01C2SSUrH01D4eQW; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:04:39 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=doKrMxo4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=ocR9PWop10UA:10 a=OUXY8nFuAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=RpNjiQI2AAAA:8 a=Pqp8BeiR7iknUlgWmr4A:9 a=jpIH26JlB8aEU1M81S3jpgcb7nU=:19 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=cAcMbU7R10T-QSRYIcO_:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=vJuR_VyAocOa-HWBgGQO: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:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:CC:To:From: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=PsfdXHbjWtPzc6Q/MBPOtdCJLimfloTbndFDTUoN4/Y=; b=Qp18ZNrshaGtcdSVbDKqz94jYc 2pkZIRc18E1q+vOtGAv5YEV6swj1DwZsYFyz/bxGemEegFzkVWQ4ghVRdbtU17LGjbrwd9wEnuhDP 9Gu3nhS/fyyE5rTYLsi78mVvt;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:51101 helo=[11.4.0.163]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1eN75f-002xiY-NX; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:04:35 -0700
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, <netmod@ietf.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:04:33 -0500
Message-ID: <16033a708e8.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <296B481E-20A5-4362-AE5C-174481FEDFA4@juniper.net>
References: <20171115.135818.591114714397486064.mbj@tail-f.com> <69960a0c-1441-ec80-d8fb-287d8c474300@labn.net> <20171117065424.ccnx3dufs7e5abk3@elstar.local> <1e71a94a-d07a-0c0b-bc02-56aefdf19329@labn.net> <296B481E-20A5-4362-AE5C-174481FEDFA4@juniper.net>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.11.0-568 (build: 101100004)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="us-ascii"
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: 1eN75f-002xiY-NX
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([11.4.0.163]) [100.15.86.101]:51101
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zq6I8coQ4ONjfGLgilf4IgVFCZk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
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, 08 Dec 2017 01:04:44 -0000

Umm, bcp covers process and consensus agreement while informational 
typically does not*.  I also don't see how 6087bis would be a more suited 
to be a bcp than this document.

Lou


On December 7, 2017 7:06:35 PM Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
> BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application 
> of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a 
> "practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".
>
> Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does 
> not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be 
> cause for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG 
> (NETMOD) and therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus, but 
> I'm willing to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational RFCs 
> are published by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken 
> literally.  Perhaps we should file Errata against it?
>
> Kent // co-chair
>
>
> ===== original message =====
>
> Hi Juergen,
>
>     Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.
>
> Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on
> all the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite
> right for this document, but I also think informational isn't quite
> right either.  I do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This
> said, I think it would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and
> Benoit (as AD) if they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.
>
> Kent, Benoit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
> On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> Lou,
>>
>> right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
>> move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
>> should leave as is."?
>>
>> /js
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>> 	I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
>>>
>>> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right
>>> before publication in any case.
>>>
>>> Lou (as contributor)
>>>
>>> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
>>>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
>>>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
>>>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
>>>> document as an informative reference.
>>>>
>>>> Should we make this change?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /martin
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE&e=
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE&e=
>
>
>