IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 23 September 2022 09:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 46B5AC14CE33 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OY5SDP2V9ttG for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB62CC14CF1F for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (sulu.imp.fu-berlin.de [160.45.114.22]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E81DA1F4A4; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:55:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 8C61F1A05FE; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:55:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
cc: opsawg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <c9b79a22-810b-f458-43d5-8a1ebbea5bfa@huawei.com>
References: <74351.1663022748@dooku> <1a2b8d3a-d353-2065-e2f5-1b8c7fe32560@huawei.com> <286119.1663848648@dooku> <c9b79a22-810b-f458-43d5-8a1ebbea5bfa@huawei.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> message dated "Thu, 22 Sep 2022 22:37:03 +0200."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 27.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <79645.1663926932.1@dooku>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:55:32 +0200
Message-ID: <79646.1663926932@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/dUwV3TTwK-lMfUPdHw_1yvdxBok>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture-08
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:55:39 -0000

Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> wrote:
    > If you speak about RFC 7942, it mentions:

    >    We recommend that the Implementation Status section should be
    > removed from Internet-Drafts before they are published as RFCs.


    > So isn't sufficient to have this information in the write-up.  You can
    > write down: "Huawei has a prototype implementation of this architecture
    > and specifically of the YANG module"

Updated the shepherd review to day that.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email