[OPSAWG] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We can probably sort this out during the IESG telechat, but I want to be sure
it's flagged.

A number of the shepherd writeup questions were hastily answered and the
information we need is largely missing.  For instance:

--
> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

yes.
--

There are three questions here, and only the last of them can be answered
"yes".  The second one is the most interesting one.

--
> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

no.
--

I don't understand.

--
> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

yes.
--

So something's been filed, or reasonable reminders were sent?  The datatracker
appears to imply this must mean the latter, but it would be great to be clear.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Eric's DISCUSS position.  In particular, please fix the BCP 14
boilerplate.  BCP 13 is MIME registration procedures.