Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07

"Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 08:36 UTC

Return-Path: <asechoud@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F5313111C; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:36:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.46, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 W0LIBpc7NS4I; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:36:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAC9613111A; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 00:35:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10400; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1544085359; x=1545294959; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Av3N5tF+Ums3AudxgLs3LPWEbam7ALW6+BEXXJAHxkw=; b=KeYPrEMe33xez9PQHeqB4lTrCwY6JW0GM21GLwn13eKjAmNgk0aEXy0B NfwP28hr5GONd57O3thdORpdka5g4YVnmOBpNZqSY+feJQFsA2PDOOsX8 QDX84xeniFRUpy16MXDQ01lda3XO8+pOubvjIyqOcoX8/KwNJzjdDXT9N E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAACx3ghc/5FdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBggNmgQInCoNwiBmMDYINiRKOOxSBZgsBARgLhEkCF4J8IjQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTwBAQEDAQEBIRE6BgUMBAIBCBEEAQEBAgImAgICHwYLFQgIAgQBDQWDIQGBaQMNCA+lUoEvhUCCRg2CFwWBC4sTF4FAP4ERJx+CTIJXRwEBgSYDBQESAR8Xgm0xgiYCiTQOlkInLgkCjhKDLhiBW4UUh0mCeIkLhXeHDoJLAhEUgScfOGRxcBU7KgGCQYschT9BMYklgR+BHwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,321,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="495459659"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2018 08:35:58 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id wB68ZwCc006809 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Dec 2018 08:35:58 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:35:57 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:35:57 -0600
From: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: Routing WG <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
Thread-Index: AQHUiR3zYfIvVYtpQkeiGnTNjLVi0aVxSaYA
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:35:57 +0000
Message-ID: <2E0081AE-D64A-44B2-92CA-3FCB5C7556C6@cisco.com>
References: <5e6b8c2a-bbc0-4390-b8d8-358477757cf6@Spark> <036a01d48bc1$7abc5960$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <E2732A9B-9BE8-48DE-8501-5FF86F02ACD2@cisco.com> <035801d48c96$2ca6d0e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <035801d48c96$2ca6d0e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.3.181015
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.2.254]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B4C6406B8307AA458625063BB1E1524A@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/A2JPAdBXgsWW_P0d-YSNKMlhbM4>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 08:36:05 -0000

Thanks Tom, I will discuss these points with my co-authors.
Let us know any other feedback you may have.

Regards,
Aseem

On 12/5/18, 4:32 AM, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

    Aseem
    
    On the references,  where you have an import, e.g.
         import ietf-qos-classifier {       prefix classifier;     }
    you should say where this is to be found
    e.g.
      import ietf-network {    prefix "nw";
        reference  "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies";  }
    or
         import ietf-qos-classifier {  prefix classifier;
             reference "RFC XXXX: YANG Model for QoS";      }
    -- Note to RFC Editor please replace XXXX with the number assigned to
    this I-D
    
    On YANG description, I expect many, if not most, clauses to have a
    reference - see, for example, RFC8348 for a well-populated module.
    
    On YANG version, the current version is 1.1 and has been for over two
    years, so if you want the previous version for some reason, like using
    TLS1.0 instead of TLS1.3, then that needs justifying.
    
    On multiple modules, the more modules the more prefixes and the longer
    the references to an object in another module so you have e.g.
            augment "/policy:policies" +
                    "/policy:policy-entry" +
                    "/policy:classifier-entry" +
                    "/policy:classifier-action-entry-cfg" +
                    "/policy:action-cfg-params" +
                    "/diffserv:meter-inline" +
                    "/diffserv:meter-type" +
                    "/diffserv:one-rate-tri-color-meter-type" +
                    "/diffserv:one-rate-tri-color-meter" {
    instead of, perhaps,
      augment
    "/policies/policy-entry/classifier-entry/classifier-action-entry-cfg" +
                    "/action-cfg-params/meter-inline/meter-type" +
    
    "/one-rate-tri-color-meter-type/one-rate-tri-color-meter" {
    were they all to be in the same module.  This also applies to when
    statements.
    
    There is, unfortunately, in YANG no way of saying assume "policy:" until
    I say "diffserv:".  It is when third parties augment with custom
    features that it gets messier.  So, my personal view, is that separate
    modules needs justification, such as the expectation that they will
    evolve differently - but then that suggests that they should be in
    separate RFC!  I grant that classifying, metering, marking, etc are
    distinct pieces of technology but I am less convinced of the case for
    separate YANG modules.  Look, for example, at
    draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg
    to see a single module encompassing several aspects of one protocol.
    
    Tom Petch
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Aseem Choudhary (asechoud)" <asechoud@cisco.com>
    To: "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; "Jeff Tantsura"
    <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>; "RTGWG" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
    Cc: "Routing WG" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 10:17 PM
    
    
    > Hi Tom,
    >
    > Thanks for the comments.
    >
    > Please see some comments inline.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Aseem
    >
    > On 12/4/18, 3:09 AM, "rtgwg on behalf of tom petch"
    <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
    >
    >     Viewed as a YANG module, there are a number of defects in this
    I-D.  I
    >     think that the flavour is well illustrated by:
    >
    >     - s.5 This document defines five YANG modules
    >     The Table of Contents lists seven
    >
    >     Copyright statements are all 2014.
    >
    >     revision date of  s.6.1  is 2016-03-03
    >
    > [AC] I thought it is for last modified date.
    >
    >     yang-version is a mixture of 1 and 1.1
    >
    > [AC] I am not sure it needs to be all 1 or 1.1
    >
    >     IANA gets no mention, not even a TBD.
    >
    >     No mention of NMDA
    >
    >     The modules are devoid of any YANG reference statements, either
    for
    >     import or for description.
    >
    >     No reference for Tree Diagrams.
    >
    >     No current reference for YANG itself or Interface Management
    >
    > [AC] I see below three YANG references. Am I missing something?
    >
    >    [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
    >               the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
    >               DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
    >               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
    >
    >    [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
    >               RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
    >               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
    >
    >    [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
    >               Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
    >               <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
    >
    >     The (unanswered) technical question is why have so many modules; I
    am a
    >     fan of separate modules for YANG types and YANG identities, since
    I see
    >     them as having a different evolution, but that is not done here;
    rather,
    >     the functionality is broken up, leading to more YANG prefixes,
    modules
    >     that are more complex. Why?
    >
    > [AC] These modules are basic building blocks for a QOS model. The
    functionality is logically broken into different modules.
    >          YANG types and identities defined are for the specific
    module. Not sure what you find complex here than it needs to be.
    >
    >     Tom Petch
    >
    >
    >     ----- Original Message -----
    >     From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
    >     To: "RTGWG" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
    >     Cc: "Routing WG" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
    >     Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2018 2:30 AM
    >     Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model-07
    >
    >
    >     > Dear RTGWG,
    >     >
    >     > The authors have requested RTGWG to adopt
    >     draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model as the working group document.
    >     > The draft has received support during IETF101 meeting, authors
    have
    >     addressed all the comments received.
    >     >
    >     > Please indicate support or no-support by December 15, 2018.
    >     >
    >     > If you are listed as a document author or contributor please
    respond
    >     to this
    >     > email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant
    IPR.
    >     > The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The
    document
    >     will not
    >     > advance to the next stage until a response has been received
    from each
    >     > author and each individual that has contributed to the
    document..
    >     >
    >     > Cheers,
    >     > Jeff & Chris
    >     >
    >
    >
    >     ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------
    >     --------
    >
    >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > rtgwg mailing list
    >     > rtgwg@ietf.org
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
    >     >
    >
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     rtgwg mailing list
    >     rtgwg@ietf.org
    >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
    >
    >
    >