Subject: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:12:56 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Adam's DISCUSS.

Section 1.1: I'm surprised to see the two references to the long-expired NFVRG
drafts. If a reference to describe virtualized infrastructure using
orchestration is really needed (I'm not convinced that it is), I would assume a
better reference exists from outside the IETF/IRTF.

Section 5.2:

OLD
"Encrypted mode 'makes it impossible to alter
              timestamps undetectably.' See also Section 4 of RFC 7717
              and Section 6 of RFC 4656."

NEW
"Encrypted mode 'makes it impossible to alter
              timestamps undetectably' [Section 6 of RFC 4656]. See also
              Section 4 of RFC 7717."

Process comment more for the AD: the YANG doctors reviewed a version of this
more than a year ago. Is that typical or would they normally review again
during IETF LC?

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:59:52 -0500

Hi, Alissa,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/

I'm not that clued about the definition of "normal" for YANG documents
(IIRC, this is the first one I've been responsible for), but I noticed
that, too, after seeing Adam's ballot. He caught something I'd expect a
YANG doctor to catch, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that what
they are watching for has changed since 2016, after a few hundred YANG
reviews :-)

So, yeah, early reviews are great, but maybe IETF LC is a good time to
re-review?

Spencer

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 15:18:07 +0000

Hi Spencer and Alissa,

From: ippm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 10:00 AM
To: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Alissa,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:13 AM Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11: No Objection

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_iesg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=seDncmaEebMu4iGCJiMYOLMG46N2EjTcGHkoOCkpuYY&s=qhsQSq50VBebWcF5OS-nPl6vZaaKmiGKuYnf7cooqu4&e=>
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dippm-2Dtwamp-2Dyang_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=seDncmaEebMu4iGCJiMYOLMG46N2EjTcGHkoOCkpuYY&s=7Kfg1qwZcGR9YmbkImHZXJnmpL2e9YmNTYvoWOHJyvI&e=>

Section 5.2:

OLD

NEW

I'm not that clued about the definition of "normal" for YANG documents (IIRC, this is the first one I've been responsible for), but I noticed that, too, after seeing Adam's ballot. He caught something I'd expect a YANG doctor to catch, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that what they are watching for has changed since 2016, after a few hundred YANG reviews :-)

So, yeah, early reviews are great, but maybe IETF LC is a good time to re-review?

Spencer
[acm]
It is my recollection that we had a YANG Doctor Review from Jan Lindblad,
a complete re-review from Jan several months later (after addressing earlier
comments), and a re-re-review from Ladislav Lhokta after that.

We took the Doctors’ many prescriptions for better model health.
Al

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 13:00:22 -0400

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 11:18 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Great! Weird that they did not appear in the datatracker.

Alissa

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:36:37 -0700

Hi Alissa,

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 6:12 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Ok. Let me respond to that on the thread Adam has initiated.

> better reference exists from outside the IETF/IRTF.

I did a Google search for the topic of one of the drafts, and top hits came from IEEE. But both the papers are available on a subscription basis. What is the policy for quoting papers that are not publicly available?

To the question for the need to have a reference to virtualized infrastructure, the authors are merely pointing out that the problem of measurement is more acute because of scale. We are happy to drop the reference. 

Please advise. 

>              Section 4 of RFC 7717.”

Will fix.

Thanks.

> more than a year ago. Is that typical or would they normally review again

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:55:44 -0500

Hi, Mahesh,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:36 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> I did a Google search for the topic of one of the drafts, and top hits
> came from IEEE. But both the papers are available on a subscription basis.
> What is the policy for quoting papers that are not publicly available?
>

I think the key points here are that you should provide the best references
that you can, and provide the most stable pointers you can come up with for
those references.

I don't believe we require that references be available at no cost, only
that the cost of obtaining them should be reasonable.

IIRC, Russ Housley told me about a standard somewhere in the medical space
that was $40K US per copy. We didn't think that was reasonable, but we
thought that some amount of cost could be reasonable.

Spencer

> To the question for the need to have a reference to virtualized
> infrastructure, the authors are merely pointing out that the problem of
> measurement is more acute because of scale. We are happy to drop the
> reference.
>
> Please advise.
>
> >
> > Section 5.2:
> >
> > OLD

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:19:11 -0400

> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 

I think dropping the references is preferable.

Thanks,
Alissa

> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 09:06:29 -0700

> On Jun 22, 2018, at 6:19 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Alissa,
>> 
>>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 6:12 AM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Will do.

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani
[email-masked]