-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
发送时间: 2023年7月24日 3:12
收件人: Qin Wu <bill...@huawei.com>
抄送: netmod@ietf.org; Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com>
主题: Re: [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-09
Authors,
I may have missed it, but was the point below addressed?
On 7/3/2023 2:23 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> YANG authors should not need to tag nodes with specific metrics at all.
> I am not convinced that standard tags like "counter," or "loss," or
> "delay" are useful.
> IMO it would be better to keep standard tags in their own RFC(s),
> especially something as complicated as metrics classification.
As contributor, I too have a hard time seeing the value of having tags that map
directly to attributes such as delay, jitter, and loss - I'd expect the tags
to map to classes not instances of attributes.
[Qin]: Yes, it is mapped to classes rather than instance of attributes. I am
leaning toward separating this out for simplicity reason.
From a process perspective, can you explain why references in IETF tags,
section 9.2, are not *normative*? (note some are not even lisyted in the
references section.)
[Qin]: You are referred to openmetrics references, I can move it as normative
reference but I am not sure one external document defined by open source
community can be listed as normative reference.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks,
Lou
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
