Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 01 August 2018 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 AAA2E130EB1; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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 AJ7tgK6k3vTe; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94243130DCD; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5906; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1533135255; x=1534344855; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Up9iR54MPEimNnDrclT2GomBHxIS1ejh1+gQPE1DebU=; b=Z+wopwOLVbwsDAhTN+iQZTfIjgoZFBUiRWLo7mI45x3ViAbRgUqdi1D+ DprCINlx1gsFw/+GucP19SxRtrd4eLypYzaKhI/pd3Sc4BdaW0SCC3KIC YUF+VBIwmk96knq87oceQwZFhFbIF3j2BxcqoP+2eNWMWpPhrqmiBBXXE Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B2AQCeyGFb/xbLJq1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMkgQ1/KIN+iGWNQS2IRI0UFIFmAwgYC4RJAoNhNhYBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgEBAm0cDIU2AQEBBAEBIQ8BBTQCBgUMBAsVAQICAiYCAiEGMAYBDAYCAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?DHAGBZwMVD69CAYEvgS6EXoI8DYMtBTRXiBSBQT+BEieBbX6BKBkBgRRFAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?BJgMFARIBgyCCVQKSFoddKwmML4MHBoFIhB6CTYVePopugT2FWYFIDSRhcTM?= =?us-ascii?q?aCBsVO4JpgjGBBQECh1yFPz4wjTOCOgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,432,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="5558796"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Aug 2018 14:54:12 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.106] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com [10.63.23.106]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w71EsBps027443; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:54:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model@ietf.org" <draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model@ietf.org>
References: <1ACE6CBB-98FF-4C3A-B169-F1AEC900AF8E@gmail.com> <022701d428ac$9c6a86e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <A967BC16-42E6-442B-ABE7-F8B247B0FFAB@gmail.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <fc07711b-cd18-24c0-77e4-977614234572@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:54:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A967BC16-42E6-442B-ABE7-F8B247B0FFAB@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.106, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/UhnKEcefbkw_BqJahioVz70cjGU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:54:18 -0000

Hi Tom, Jeff,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, we will address these comments, and also the comments raised by the 
other reviews.  I'll also do a pass through the document in an attempt 
to improve the prose.

One slightly difficultly is that I have learned today that we are 
loosing the primary editor, but gaining a replacement. I'm also about to 
be on holiday for a few weeks, so the majority of my updates will 
probably need to be deferred until September.

For clarification, are you saying that we should post an updated version 
before a final adoption call, or for these comments to be addressed 
immediately after it is adopted (if that is the outcome).

Thanks,
Rob


On 31/07/2018 22:27, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Many thanks for your comments!
> Authors - I'd expect you to address them while the document is in adoption state.
>
> Tom - specifically to "flaky English" comment - your help to making the document better would be highly appreacited.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
> On 7/31/18, 02:01, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; wrote:
>
>      <rant>
>      This I-D has some of the usual things wrong with it that need fixing at
>      some state and, as ever, I like to see the editors fix at least some of
>      them before adoption rather than leaving them until later, since they
>      then seem to linger, perhaps until WG Last Call or IETF Last Call (yes,
>      I am thinking of WG such as MPLS:-)
>      
>      There is a fundamental (to me) principle in engineering of get it right
>      first time, or at least as early as possible; later means more
>      expensive, more time consuming for everyone involved.  I link this to
>      the discussion on the main IETF list of the difficulty of finding ADs
>      because so much time is involved in being an AD; yes, and part of that
>      is us giving them poor quality documents with defects that could have
>      been fixed even before adoption..
>      </rant>
>      
>      This I-D
>      
>      - fails to mention whether or not it is NMDA compliant in the Abstract
>      and Introduction
>      
>      - fails to use the current definitions of terminology from RFC8342
>      
>      - references the old version of RFC2119 key words
>      
>      - has no Note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace the YANG module
>      dates with date of publication.  I suggest a Note asking them to replace
>      XXXX with the number assigned to this I-D at the start of the I-D rather
>      than asking them to replace 'draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 ' which,
>      should this I-D be adopted, will be wrong
>      
>      - has no Copyright statement in the YANG module
>      
>      - lacks references for several imported modules.
>      
>      - starts Section 4 well with a good sentence but fails to mention most
>      imports
>      
>      - has serious formatting problems with the text in the YANG module with
>      lines being way too long for an RFC (it is probably not a coincidence
>      that other I-Ds have had the same problem -  the right options in pyang
>      fix this AFAIK)
>      
>      - has no IANA Considerations; no IANA Considerations means that you are
>      not producing a YANG module no matter what it looks like.
>      
>      - Security Considerations are much better than usual but lack detail of
>      sensitive nodes
>      
>      - Tree diagrams has the right reference but then spoils it by including
>      text about the symbols
>      
>      - has out of date references
>         [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis]
>         [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis]
>      which belie the claimed date of  June 28, 2018 for this I-D; 2018-01-27
>      looks more like it:-)
>      
>      - has arp as a Informative Reference - Normative I think.
>      
>      I note that there is  no IPV6 in the examples but that seems right since
>      ARP is IPv4.
>      
>      The English is flaky in places but I am fine with that; that can be
>      fixed once the text has been discussed and agreed - in fact there is no
>      point in producing perfect English if we are then going to discuss and
>      change it - whereas the points above can mostly be fixed before now.
>      
>      Tom Petch
>      
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: "Jeff Tantsura" <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>;
>      To: "RTGWG" <rtgwg@ietf.org>;
>      Cc: "rtgwg-chairs" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>;;
>      <draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model@ietf.org>;
>      Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:04 AM
>      
>      > Dear RTGWG,
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt
>      draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model as the working group document.
>      >
>      > The draft has been stable and provides all the additional arp pieces
>      that are not in RFC8344, it has been presented at IETF 102 and no
>      substantial comments have been received.
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > Please indicate support or no-support by August 09, 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
>      >
>      
>      
>
>
> .
>