IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1021200E5; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7oy8PpwiDTpe; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 526C31200DB; Mon, 8 Jul 2019 19:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 975ACE25A142DB325AD4; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:35:34 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by lhreml703-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 03:35:33 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.134]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:35:28 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, OpsAWG Chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
Thread-Index: AdU0mY0HwLESRG3CQh28DItDm66IJAAqdWKAAC0O0GA=
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 02:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE7C23A@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com>
References: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE7AD17@NKGEML515-MBS.china.huawei.com> <3AF6CDDC-7C4A-4EF6-8B33-A767AA475F76@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <3AF6CDDC-7C4A-4EF6-8B33-A767AA475F76@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEE7C23ANKGEML515MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/agRmX6bM_8f5r4w6R3ClIs9BSdc>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 02:35:39 -0000

Hi Eliot,

Thanks for your suggestions. Please see inline.

Tianran

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 8:13 PM
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; OpsAWG Chairs <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG adoption poll for draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02

Hi Tianran,

I have two concerns about this draft.  First is the intended status of this document.  It currently calls out draft-ietf-opsawg-tacacs as an informational reference.  I think the question here is really whether this draft should also be informational.  As a practical matter you really do need to have implemented the other draft for this one to be implemented.  And that means that really it should be a normative reference.  But it would be a downref.  To address this, I suggest just making this document an informational draft, rather than targeting for standards, and make the reference normative.

[Tianran] Yes, I have the same concern. You provided a good approach. On the other hand, I think RFC3967 described this case.
“2.  The Need for Downward References
    …
   o  A standards document may need to refer to a proprietary protocol,
      and the IETF normally documents proprietary protocols using
      informational RFCs.”

In addition, I have another question.  Is there interest or appetite for creating a standardized and more version of T+?  If so, is the timing of a standardized YANG model appropriate?

[Tianran] I would like to see how the WG would like to approach.

Eliot



On 7 Jul 2019, at 09:58, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi WG,

This document was presented in Prague. The authors have addressed all the comments and believe it’s ready for further working group discussion.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zheng-opsawg-tacacs-yang-02


This email starts a two weeks poll for adoption.
If you support adopting this document please say so, and please give an indication of why you think it is important. Also please say if you will be willing to review and help the draft.
If you do not support adopting this document as a starting point for work on this topic, please say why..
This poll will run until 22nd July.

Regards,
Tianran & Joe

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org<mailto:OPSAWG@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email