Subject: [netmod] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 00:50:24 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-08: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location/

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

I support Lars' and Francesca's DISCUSS positions.

The shepherd writeup says: "There are no known implementations known to the
Shepherd.  No vendors have indicated their plan to implement the specification.
 It was originally forwarded to support DT's Terra Stream project."  I'm
tempted to ask why this is slotted for Standards Track publication.

---

From: Christian Hopps <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 04:43:06 -0400

> tempted to ask why this is slotted for Standards Track publication.

It's a grouping, it's meant to be incorporated into other YANG modules rather than have each module come up with their own version of a geo-location object.

So, it's wont be "implemented" directly by any vendor until it is published and can start to be used in other module definitions. There definitely is interest in this use in the netmod WG.

---

From: Vladimir Vassilev <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 11:33:09 +0200

On 20/05/2021 10.43, Christian Hopps wrote:
> It's a grouping, it's meant to be incorporated into other YANG modules 
> rather than have each module come up with their own version of a 
> geo-location object.
>
> So, it's wont be "implemented" directly by any vendor until it is 
> published and can start to be used in other module definitions. There 
> definitely is interest in this use in the netmod WG.
>
Hi,

I intend to use the grouping in our implementation. We can do that at 
the upcoming Hackathon event and validate the module with some running code.

/Vladimir