IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 05 October 2017 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EC16129A89; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 juM7AsWm9w0t; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F95E134570; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:37:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v95Dbjni022801; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:37:45 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (218.122.115.87.dyn.plus.net [87.115.122.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v95DbiNx022793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:37:45 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'YANG Doctors' <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis.all@ietf.org
References: <262fdd36-5213-f716-016a-02442c427a0a@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <262fdd36-5213-f716-016a-02442c427a0a@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 14:37:40 +0100
Message-ID: <013c01d33ddf$1e2ad040$5a8070c0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE84666VDowpbHmUS/Up6dKWyTSTKQB8k3Q
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23372.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.864-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.864-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: zGP2F0O7j/tI/CNmhyS9DYlD2T5imTkJ7+pIlQkyFUqjFcKTkDI9jPDe 5EH70rLi45HLzdQc+37/ves7HZ3ejSpqfWacbItrlTsGW3DmpUu3dp6DuD+6wC62hjZS0WoY+r4 ksoUQ8wUmYuoq7bKp2dqspQ7EuDzTgI5vOKa1KGidtRmRhPNchlt06oMfzUpK/RM/+SKR6qcpLI yXgGntrnaoNZ0b9ErteeOhgmVGz4s3KXWd30Ii3YMbH85DUZXyseWplitmp0j6C0ePs7A07blX3 Pe+qTcq/zodTrM4ezznhlhXj9iFoS8fVxDveKiQwDr1vFiQdDpHItCrNUqNr4uxUW/eKCt9JXH2 5tEgy/hfdwHEfF/fjjxF29QOnKx7h8f9+fd10RPkvmU7gj2frT4n7o4CNd3aPbiTch0pm34=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/xkWlPHJLvnVcF1ZloZKy_EHKWRk>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:38:01 -0000

Hello,

The changes in this bis largely arise from a review by Jan Lindblad who is one of the YAG Doctors.

You could say that what happened was that the YANG Doctor review for draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model came in a little behind schedule and so a bis was needed. Jan also brought some valuable implementation experience.

Now, you may have a slightly different concern. Specifically: is draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis backward compatible with RFC 8049?

That was certainly not an objective that I was aware of. I think 8049 has only been out a short time and that implementations are "at an early stage." Indeed, as Jan points out, a correct implementation will *need* the fixes in this draft.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: 05 October 2017 14:10
> To: YANG Doctors
> Cc: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?
> 
> Hi,
> 
>     Has there been a review conducted or is there one planned for
> draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?  If not, I think one is needed.  I'm looking
> at it now as part of RtgDir review and I believe some non-backwards
> compatible changes in the defined yang module.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> PS for module diffs see:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-
> 05.txt&url1=rfc8049

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email