IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com> Wed, 25 March 2020 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jholland@akamai.com>
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 F0FAF3A096C; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 HC1LJl26IDQ1; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF143A096B; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 02P2qQlt002980; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:56:14 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=Du43QMf1lItKgyfSNqC+1Sj4YlGHLHWJ5Bap36meteQ=; b=HwWwuEOZJlRiQ9qgwuNO5qsD5KjaHIpP0j02Xf72LpdyPDQSLYXXrFzsWU18faI1+p0G +C374Mru/mmPfaDeiNyDd9dLVRF/TFNPxuRBK/jr7sCXrHu/lEju7uIJcyexP7ls/7wS HVA/TAUWgTJeZcngbsX1HFlR51UmCBebR6SPawiJ4AVKRuL10qvz1ernPi022OJHEHRn UozFVnYBlZo4HDzaZNDLLVhBjUWzQtfyWzapv5vBTy1RX6l9GIcwEPQoWHbtqtFgcClZ rvi2goSEYmY+gqtSc5PNmuHg2ABWIXBsF3XQ9rbCgIWGhK1IW8ZrMxhiObQk4b/foynF Ng==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint7 (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [96.6.114.121] (may be forged)) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2yytab91vp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:56:14 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 02P2lRK3025065; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:56:13 -0400
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.30]) by prod-mail-ppoint7.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2ywe8ubs4r-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:56:13 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.65) by usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:56:11 -0400
Received: from usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) by usma1ex-dag1mb6.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.65]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Tue, 24 Mar 2020 22:56:11 -0400
From: "Holland, Jake" <jholland@akamai.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>, tcpm IETF list <tcpm@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org" <draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tcpm] Request for feedback on WG adoption of draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-04
Thread-Index: AQHV+9Pb2TN51xBbVkiZmhVoyaYX66hYd+6A
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:56:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CE61D62B-44CA-4F69-B1EC-3F2C13B244D4@akamai.com>
References: <ACE60B78-42E2-4932-86EA-14921A1D05D9@fh-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: <ACE60B78-42E2-4932-86EA-14921A1D05D9@fh-muenster.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.35.20030802
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.80.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <94BF57E3F0A35F44BEE7DF0B06B4F4D6@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.645 definitions=2020-03-24_10:2020-03-23, 2020-03-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-2002250000 definitions=main-2003250023
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.645 definitions=2020-03-24_10:2020-03-23, 2020-03-24 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2003250023
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/qpY7WmhuFVPvPD-ODckZtjayFIM>
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 02:56:19 -0000

Hi tcpm and authors,

I'd like to hear from the authors about their intentions with regard to
"running code" to go with the development on this model.

I can imagine several valuable use cases for a model like this one,
many of which are mentioned in the document, but I think the kinds of
thing I'd hope to see in an "Implementation Status" section (or even
an "Implementation Plans" section) would make a big difference to me on
whether I support adoption at this time or not.

I think a model like this one would be useful, but I'm not confident I
can usefully review a model like this as a standalone entity from first
principles by reading through it, and so if that's what we'd be signing
tcpm up to do, I'd rather defer adoption.

On the other hand, if somebody currently is writing or wants to write,
for instance, a way to translate back and forth between yang instance
data and the sysctls in a widely used operating system or 2, and will be
providing a review of which settings are and are not compatible with the
model to the wg as the development progresses, then I'm _highly_
supportive of adoption.  If that's the situation, I expect seeing
examples and usage will provide enough meat to make a meaningful review
possible.

I just don't know which of those situations is closer to being the case
here.

Please forgive me if this has been covered already in previous tcpm
meetings, but I missed it if it was.

Best regards,
Jake

On 3/16/20, 1:45 PM, "Michael Tuexen" <tuexen@fh-muenster.de> wrote:

    Dear all,
    
    this mail starts a WG adoption call for
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-scharf-tcpm-yang-tcp-04
    
    So I would like to solicit feedback regarding support for or objections against the
    adoption of the document as a WG document in TCPM.
    
    Please provide feedback before March 31st.
    
    For the context and current state of the document, see the presentation sent yesterday
    to the mailing list by Mahesh.
    
    Best regards
    Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email