Re: [trill] [Lime] Adoption call for draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm (12/15/2014 to 12/30/2014)

I am fine if you guys think the process is not issue.
But it looks more than normative reference dependency issue becos the normative referenced draft is also used as a basis for this draft.
I am not sure I make a fuss about it. Don’t you think it is strange the extension draft has been adopted without the base draft ready?
Maybe I am wrong.

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Donald Eastlake [mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2014年12月18日 1:05
收件人: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Qin Wu
抄送: lime@ietf.org; trill@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Lime] Adoption call for draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm (12/15/2014 to 12/30/2014)

Hi Carlos and Qin,

Thanks, Carlos, for reviewing and commenting on this draft. I'm sure your comments will help improve the draft.

However, I do not agree on the process points. It is important to distinguish between adopting a draft, that is taking a personal draft under the control of its authors and making it a Working Group draft under the control of the Working Group, and the final Working Group consensus determination (usually involving a WG Last Call) to request RFC publication of a draft.

More polished drafts are obviously better than drafts with lots of nits, references incorrectly categorized are Normative or Informative, and the like, That sort of thing needs to be fixed before RFC publication is requested, but I do not think it has to be fixed before adopting the draft. A draft can be adopted by a Working Group even if there are much worse problems in the draft, such as serious technical flaws or inconsistencies, as long as the Working Group thinks it is a plausible starting point to work from. Just adopting the draft is not a guarantee that there will later be Working Group consensus to request RFC publication. Of course, you would expect a draft to be improved after it has been adopted and before RFC publication is requested.

The normative references process point is a bit less clear cut. It is very common for drafts to be fully approved all the way through being in the RFC Editor's queue despite normative dependencies on other drafts that are at a much earlier stage in the process. If you go to
http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html
and search for "MISSREF" you will find many fully approved drafts whose publication is being held up by normative references to other drafts that are not yet approved (or, in some cases, held up by a normative reference to an approved draft that in turn normatively references anther draft that is not yet approved or even longer normative reference chains with the last draft in the chain not approved). The TRILL WG has frequently approved drafts with one or more normative dependencies that had not yet been approved. On the other hand, if the Working Group feels it is appropriate to delay, it certainly can hold up on requesting publication of a draft until it is satisfied with the status of normative references from that draft.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com<mailto:d3e3e3@gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>> wrote:
Agree with Carlos, it is process issue. Usually a I-D will not be adopted until all the normative referenced drafts get proceeded.

Regards!
-Qin
发件人: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表 Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)
发送时间: 2014年12月16日 23:03
收件人: Susan Hares
抄送: Donald Eastlake; jon.hudson@gmail.com<mailto:jon.hudson@gmail.com>; lime@ietf.org<mailto:lime@ietf.org>; trill@ietf.org<mailto:trill@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Lime] Adoption call for draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm (12/15/2014 to 12/30/2014)

Sue, Jon,

I have a few concerns with this document:

  *   The Abstract says “It extends Yang Data Model for TRILL OAM [TRILLOAMYANG]”, however, [TRILLOAMYANG] is listed as an Informative reference — I believe it should be Normative (all the definitions are coming from it, and this doc extends that model)

     *   It seems the same issue exists with draft-ietf-trill-yang-oam and [GENYANGOAM], which should be Normative there.
     *   By the way, a nit as well (the Abstract includes citations).

  *   Ditto for [GENYANGOAM], as the text says “In this document we extend the YANG model defined in [GENYANGOAM]”
  *   There’s a non-insignificant set of Nits which frankly should be taken care of before this call for adoption (see http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm-00.txt)

     *   This severely detracts from readability.

I believe these are blocking for adoption.

Thanks,

Carlos.

On Dec 15, 2014, at 11:05 PM, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com<mailto:shares@ndzh.com>> wrote:

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm-00 which can be found at:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deepak-trill-yang-pm/

This draft will be reviewed along with other yang modules at the 12/17/2014 interim of trill held from 9-10pm ET (6-7pm PT, 10-11am Beijing on 12/18/2014).  In your review, please indicate the following:  a) if this yang module provides information necessary to manage or monitor TRILL, and b) if you support adoption this work into the TRILL WG.

Sue Hares and Jon Hudson
Co-chairs

_______________________________________________
Lime mailing list
Lime@ietf.org<mailto:Lime@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime