Roman: Agreed! Just warning you that class b (refactoring) will get less response than item a.
I will try to re-examine Paul's excellent emails to give you type (a) general model input that need uplift to WG for review. It will be early Tuesday for this response. Thanks for your help! Sue -----Original Message----- From: Roman Danyliw [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:29 AM To: Susan Hares; 't petch'; 'Linda Dunbar'; [email protected] Cc: 'Patrick Lingga'; 'Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong'; Roman Danyliw Subject: RE: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16 Hi Sue! > -----Original Message----- > From: I2nsf <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Susan Hares > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 8:46 AM > To: 't petch' <[email protected]>; Roman Danyliw <[email protected]>; 'Linda > Dunbar' <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: 'Patrick Lingga' <[email protected]>; 'Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong' > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16 > > Tom: > > The WG consensus runs into the problems that there are 3 types of changes to > the drafts: > > a) content additions/changes to model > b) changes for refactoring of the yang models > c) textual changes that do not impact the model. > > As mentioned in my response to Roman that it seems > > a) Content additions/changes to the model - should be WGs review > b) refactoring for refactoring of the yang models - needs to be expert Yang > c) textual changes - can be optional reviewed by WG A helpful characterization of the changes! The point I wanted emphasize is that while the substance of changes may vary, the need for WG consensus doesn't change. As a generic process comment, (a) and (b) may need WG consensus regardless of whether it came out of AD Review, IETC LC Review, or IESG feedback. Depending on the scale of (c), the WG may need to also be looped in. Before publication is requested (prior to any of these activities outside of the WG), consensus and adequate review by the WG is also needed. Ensuring this consensus check was the motivation for my message which renewed this thread (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/8_ywqxrdKnI461VrK6taza5en6c/). If these reviews don't organically happen, the responsibility falls on the chairs (thanks Linda and Yoav) and me to ensure it. Roman > -----Original Message----- > From: I2nsf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of t petch > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:03 AM > To: Roman Danyliw; Linda Dunbar; [email protected] > Cc: Patrick Lingga; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong > Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16 > > On 20/03/2022 16:45, Roman Danyliw wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Linda: Thanks sending out this assessment and ending the WGLC. > > > > WG: In additional to the IPR check, one other thing I will be looking > > for > in the second WGLC of this document is (a) evidence of review by the WG and > (b) support by the WG to publish it (irrespective of whether there is charter > milestone or not). There has been very little WG discussion of this document > on the mailing list in the last 18 months and no formal meetings > with it as a topic. Most discussions have been between a reduced set of > document authors and directorates reviews/IETF LC/IESG balloting feedback. > The last three documents sent to the IESG (-capability-data-model, monitoring- > data-model, nsf-facing-interface-dm) have required substantial changes due to > AD review, directorate review and IESG Review (to include them all still being > blocked with multiple (2-4) DISCUSSes). I want to make sure that all future > documents the WG requests publication on have gotten the needed review in > the WG. > > Roman > > Yes! > > I see capability-data-model as being the core I-D from which the others stem > (ideally with a common module of YANG and definitions:-). I was still catching > up with the repeated revisions of that when nsf-facing and nsf-monitoring went > forward. IMHO the IESG could have had a easier time if the lessons of capability > had been applied to the latter two before seeking to progress them; easy to say > in hindsight. > > I think Ben's DISCUSS on capability 2/2/22 are key. He points out that the level > of detail expected is unclear. What does monitoring on a routing header > mean? All of them, including future ones, any one or what? Obvious now Ben > has said so but I never thought of it. Looking back at RFC8329 I see no mention > of routing headers being part of this work (where are the authors of RFC8329 > when we need them?). Ben also comments that a base capability is ambiguous > - can it be used per se as in derived-from-or self or only as derived-from? > Likewise the resolution strategies are obvious until Ben points out that they are > not defined anywhere that he (or I) can see. I note that one of them has > disappeared from capabiity -26 but like most of the changes to this and the > other I-Ds, there is no consensus for this change because there has been no > discussion within the WG. > > This lack of consensus is to me the defining characteristic of the I2NSF WG. At > AD review you asked for expanded definitions in a few cases and got them > which seemed fine. Then a ..art reviewer asks for a whole lot more and gets > them. As I commented, to me this is a lack of familiarity on the part of the ..art > reviewer and for most people involved, like you, like me, like other ..art > reviewers, the existing definitions are adequate. And this is a multi-headed > hydra because the new text takes the I-D out of line with the other I-D (my > bane), with other parts of the same I-D, and, as many have commented, the > English often needs attention and so any change to the text is likely to generate > further change and may even be unclear or worse. The changes made generate > issues faster than I can point them out so the number of unfixed issues > increases exponentially. Several of Ben's or Lars's textual comments I have > marked in my copy as issues to raise when I have raised the larger, more > technical ones; I could have saved Ben and Lars some time (as a WG should do). > > Out of many such I would highlight the use of 'l4' or 'layer4'. Some time ago I > pointed out that this was unusual in the IETF, 'transport' > being more common and this was duly changed in the identity. A reviewer of > nsf-monitoring found the word 'port', used in the context of ipv4/ipv6, > ambiguous and suggested 'l4port' which was duly incorporated in some parts of > that particular I-D and not in others and not in the other I-Ds (my bane again). > As before, I think the need to qualify 'port' is more of a comment on the > reviewer and not on the I-D:-) Had the issue been raised on the list I would > have objected! > > So: > - the rate of change on these I-Ds is high (I have yet to catch up with all those > that appeared in January and February) > - no change has WG consensus because nothing is discussed on the WG list > - changes are made to one part of one I-D without being reflected in other > parts of that I-D or in the other related I-D > - changes lack clarity and so raise further issues requiring change. > > For me, the root cause is the way of working of the WG, unlike any other I am > involved with in that comments made by ...art, by me, do not get reviewed, > discussed. Nothing has consensus. Coupled with this is the high rate of change > induced by the authors - sometimes I can see where the change came from, > other times I cannot - and the lack of a clear scope for the work, e.g. a lack of > alignment with RFC8329 which ought to be the high-level definition of what > this work is about. > > Tom Petch > > > > > > Regards, > > Roman > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: I2nsf <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 4:44 PM > >> To: t petch <[email protected]>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; Patrick Lingga <[email protected]>; > skku-iotlab- > >> members <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16 > >> > >> I2NSF WG, > >> > >> Since the comments from Tom Petch haven't been addressed, we can't > >> complete the WGLC for draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16. > >> Agree with Tom, the WG needs to reach consensus if it is necessary > >> for > the > >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm to be consistent with > >> the > draft- > >> ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Linda Dunbar > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: I2nsf <[email protected]> On Behalf Of t petch > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:20 AM > >> To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected]; Patrick Lingga <[email protected]>; > skku-iotlab- > >> members <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] WGLC for > draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16 > >> > >> On 02/03/2022 14:40, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> Patrick and I are finalizing the revision of the NSF-Facing > >>> Interface YANG Data Model Draft this week. > >> > >> If I read it aright, the cut-off for updated I-D for the upcoming > >> IETF is > next > >> Monday. after which the system is in purdah for a while. The IETF > website > >> might tell me about the latter (if it had a search engine:-) > >> > >> Tom Petch > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> After this revision, we will reflect the comments from IESG on this > >>> Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model Draft. > >>> > >>> Thanks for your comments. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:31 PM t petch <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On 17/02/2022 17:00, Linda Dunbar wrote: > >>>>> Hello Working Group, > >>>>> > >>>>> Many thanks to the authors to address all the comments from YANG > >>>>> Doctor > >>>> review. > >>>>> > >>>>> This email starts a three-weeks Working Group Last Call for > >>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd > >>>> at > >>>> atracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interfac > >>>> e- > >>>> > >> > dm%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b96 > >> 2cbb4 > >>>> > >> > 208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7 > >> C6378 > >>>> > >> > 18384373805664%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLC > >> JQIjoiV2 > >>>> > >> > luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=F7VLxYYqc6kp > >> xD3 > >>>> w15O7Lewbot4zMgkGcozhpKViuJY%3D&reserved=0 > >>>> > >>>> I think that this is premature. As ever, there is substantial > >>>> overlap with other I-D in the set, notably nsf-facing, and, as > >>>> ever, the two I-D do things differently which I think can only > >>>> confuse. If there is a reason for the differences, then that needs > >>>> calling out IMHO; at the moment it seems arbitrary, such as which > >>>> ...art reviewer > last > >> saw the I-D! > >>>> > >>>> Further, nsf-facing has just attracted a large number of comments > >>>> from IESG Review, many if not most of which apply here. I think it > >>>> wrong for the IESG to be asked to do the same work all over again > >>>> so I think that the IESG comments on nsf-facing need resolving with > >>>> the IESG first and then the agreed solution - I expect that most of > >>>> the comments by the IESG will be accepted - can be incorporated > >>>> into this > I-D. > >>>> > >>>> Choice of protocols, reference for protocols, way of specifying > >>>> ranges of numbers, indeed way of specifying at all, string > >>>> language, volte, > >>>> RFC793 redundant, all those comments by Alexey on lack of clarity, > >>>> Rob's comments on identity descriptions, example labelling and so on. > >>>> > >>>> Tom Petch > >>>> > >>>>> This poll runs until March 10, 2022. > >>>>> > >>>>> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that > >>>>> applies to > >>>> this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance > >>>> with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more > details). > >>>>> If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this Document, > >>>>> please > >>>> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of > >>>> any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without > >>>> answers from all the Authors and Contributors. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please > >>>> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not > >>>> yet been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Linda > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> I2nsf mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F > >>>>> ww > >>>>> > >> > w.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi2nsf&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dun > >>>>> > >> > bar%40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b962cbb4208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a > >> 3b > >>>>> > >> > 240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637818384373805664%7CUnknown > >> %7CTWFpb > >>>>> > >> > GZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 > >> M > >>>>> > >> > n0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0WQB3KY3kIBLT9Dl5xemMrTLAMYolmsqtXjkTrjD > >> eHk%3 > >>>>> D&reserved=0 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> I2nsf mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww > >>>> > >> > .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi2nsf&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunba > >>>> > >> > r%40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b962cbb4208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a3b > >> 240 > >>>> > >> > 189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637818384373805664%7CUnknown%7C > >> TWFpbGZsb > >>>> > >> > 3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0% > >> 3D > >>>> > >> > %7C3000&sdata=0WQB3KY3kIBLT9Dl5xemMrTLAMYolmsqtXjkTrjDeHk%3 > >> D& > >>>> reserved=0 > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> I2nsf mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww > >> .ie > >> > tf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fi2nsf&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar% > >> > 40futurewei.com%7C0fd53b962cbb4208379608d9fc70f6f5%7C0fee8ff2a3b24 > >> > 0189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637818384373805664%7CUnknown%7 > >> > CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLC > >> > JXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0WQB3KY3kIBLT9Dl5xemMrTLAMYolms > >> qtXjkTrjDeHk%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> I2nsf mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > . > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
