IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 20 October 2014 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E50C1A8931; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Wrs9MGF-rEnd; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D147B1A8920; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7749B1B8427; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B16C53E07C; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:03:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:03:40 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493605F25B@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:03:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <5DE78446-2E95-4071-B348-8970E7617259@nominum.com>
References: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936053381@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <D0646F50.DDFC8%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936059BF2@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <1F384A7F-E2EC-4DEF-A5B7-6A8D65C921E5@gmail.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D2432779493605F25B@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/K6iG4bSCH5d7YGIaXhYoIs01dOg
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 11:06:34 -0700
Cc: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, sunqiong <sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "tena@huawei.com" <tena@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-10
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:14:38 -0000

On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Black, David <david.black@emc.com> wrote:
> Whether adding an informative mention of the YANG model rises to the level of
> "required" would be up to the OPS ADs.  It may help implementers find the YANG
> model, which could be useful.

The problem with this is that the informative reference would wind up being to a -00 draft of the yang data model; unless that document makes rapid progress, it's unlikely that the reference will be to a version of the document that anybody would find useful.   It might be worth asking the authors of that document where they think it will be in two or three months, since that's about the length of the RFC Editor queue at the moment, IIRC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email