IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-04

Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org> Fri, 27 March 2020 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@eggert.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECBB3A0962; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 bMquaeBRISrF; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi [193.64.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C76C73A096E; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 06:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id D05FE20424; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:48:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: from gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi [195.197.172.115]) by vs21.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id C565520330; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:48:04 +0200 (EET)
Received: from eggert.org (unknown [62.248.255.8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eggert@elisanet.fi) by gw01.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A2FD40002; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:48:00 +0200 (EET)
Received: from stickers.eggert.org (stickers.eggert.org [172.24.110.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by eggert.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D4196845C0; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:47:50 +0200 (EET)
From: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Message-Id: <FF6EE6F1-C1BD-4286-86F7-FF13B7595C46@eggert.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8C61CAC4-C189-453F-BF31-2A15F1B16195"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 15:47:49 +0200
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031481D9D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, "draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org" <draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
References: <ACE60B78-42E2-4932-86EA-14921A1D05D9@fh-muenster.de> <B574AAA7-6258-4B65-908B-89338C0B4E88@eggert.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031481D30@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <5D2DEEC6-3ECD-4134-8E85-13710ED965F5@eggert.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933031481D9D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-MailScanner-ID: 4D4196845C0.A18FB
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: lars@eggert.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/5Hpd9rTxnA-q96VBrIynSWHgQa0>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-04
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tcpm/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:48:10 -0000

On 2020-3-27, at 15:31, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> I think that you missed the key point from my message: Grouping and reuse of modules.

The point I was trying to make is that with MIBs, a similar argument was made that TCP stuff was being put into MIBs elsewhere in the IETF, and that TSV should therefore do a TCP MIB instead. And we did (twice), it took forever, and then saw little use.

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email