Thank you, Med, Mahesh, Satoru and all for your feedback and reviews. The changes requested by Med in the reviews of both the drafts are implemented now. The two draft approach that was agreed as the way forward in the last dmm meeting makes sense to me as an author. The example in [draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01] adapted from A.7 of [I-D.ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit] adds value, as it was not there with the old/combined dmm draft. But I would be OK to proceed as the chairs/ADs advise.
Pointers to the submission diffs: [draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22]: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 [draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01]: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas-01 Regards, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2025 9:42 PM > To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; opsawg <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: [DMM] Re: [OPSAWG]Re: (request to review) FW: New Versions - > draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-21 and draft-jlu-dmm-udp-tunnel-acaas- > 00 > > Thanks Mahesh-san, please discuss with your co-AD and in the ops area > whether an informational draft or RFC carries YANG modules with ietf prefix or > not. > > I think that a consistent view from OPSADs and the ops area for that helps to > avoid confusions, not only for dmm, but also all other WGs in the IETF. > > cheers, > --satoru > > > On Sep 18, 2025, at 19:07, Mahesh Jethanandani > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Saturn-san, > > > > > >> > >> On Sep 18, 2025, at 11:16 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> I would add a background on this sprit. During the last meeting an OPSAD > who gave us his feedback, like it is ok to include the YANG module in the INFO > draft. However another AD gave us opposite feedback. So the chairs and the > authors decided to sprit the draft, which looks more likely and safer way. > > > > My take (as one of the OPS AD) is that it is ok for an informational draft > > to > carry a YANG module. While it might be safe, if the document is being split > just > for that reason, it is unnecessary overhead. We should be making it easier, > not > harder to publish documents especially those that contain YANG modules. > > > > Just my 2 cents (1 if you count inflation 😀) > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
