Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Christian Hopps]

The document is adopted, authors please resubmit as

draft-ietf-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-00

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Christian Hopps  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Xufeng Liu]

Support adoption.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 4:20 AM Christian Hopps  wrote:

> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of
> any IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
>
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Jeff Tantsura]

support adoption.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 5, 2021, 1:20 AM -0800, Christian Hopps , wrote:
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)]

Support.
These additional aspects of the protocol certainly need to be included in the 
model.

   Les

> -Original Message-
> From: Lsr  On Behalf Of Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 1:20 AM
> To: lsr@ietf.org
> Cc: lsr-cha...@ietf.org; Christian Hopps 
> Subject: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-
> 03
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any
> IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[tom petch]

From: Yingzhen Qu 
Sent: 21 January 2021 17:28

Hi Tom,

We published the new version a while back, so just wondering whether you got a 
chance to review the changes? Please kindly let us know if you have other 
comments.



Yes, I did see and look at it.  I would say that it addresses the points I gave 
as show-stoppers to adoption.  The period for the adoption call has now expired 
so I was expecting a follow-up from the Chairs.

I would leave further changes until the adoption is complete.

Tom Petch 

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:02 AM, Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your review and comments.

We’ll publish a new version to address your comments within a couple of days.

Thanks,
Yingzhen


On Jan 5, 2021, at 9:04 AM, tom petch 
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:

From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch 
> mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
>
> From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
> Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> 
>
> Object, strongly.
>
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> related to that module.
>
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
>
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such 
> as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge 
> whether or not the YANG is suitable.
>
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
> published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are 
> listed as Informative.
>
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> Informational.
>
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
considering a WGLC on this document. :)


Chris,

as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for 
adoption.  Intended status Informational?  That to me is a show-stopper (even 
if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!)

Tom Petch


Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr


___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Yingzhen Qu]

Hi Tom,

We published the new version a while back, so just wondering whether you got a 
chance to review the changes? Please kindly let us know if you have other 
comments.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:02 AM, Yingzhen Qu 
mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your review and comments.

We’ll publish a new version to address your comments within a couple of days.

Thanks,
Yingzhen


On Jan 5, 2021, at 9:04 AM, tom petch 
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:

From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch 
> mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
>
> From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
> Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> 
>
> Object, strongly.
>
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> related to that module.
>
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
>
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such 
> as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge 
> whether or not the YANG is suitable.
>
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
> published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are 
> listed as Informative.
>
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> Informational.
>
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
considering a WGLC on this document. :)


Chris,

as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for 
adoption.  Intended status Informational?  That to me is a show-stopper (even 
if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!)

Tom Petch


Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Yingzhen Qu]

Speaking as co-author, I am not aware of any IPR on the draft.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 6:50 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Speaking as co-author:
> 
> I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
> On 1/5/21, 4:20 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:
> 
>This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>  
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C681a90865bfe47cb433b08d8b1896f31%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454551139457297%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=0bMg%2F5y2IQPiHFfT%2BfYih2dUYs0wwREDA0yIEpi3p3g%3D&reserved=0
> 
>Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
>Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of 
> any IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
>Thanks,
>Chris.
> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flsr&data=04%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C681a90865bfe47cb433b08d8b1896f31%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454551139467290%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=Ms2B%2F5HdJLENjUx6kyOdo2LSW57lg9rXV1iNNB%2FbE64%3D&reserved=0

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Yingzhen Qu]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your review and comments.

We’ll publish a new version to address your comments within a couple of days.

Thanks,
Yingzhen


On Jan 5, 2021, at 9:04 AM, tom petch 
mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:

From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch 
> mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote:
>
> From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
> Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>  
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> 
>
> Object, strongly.
>
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> related to that module.
>
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
>
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such 
> as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge 
> whether or not the YANG is suitable.
>
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
> published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are 
> listed as Informative.
>
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> Informational.
>
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
considering a WGLC on this document. :)


Chris,

as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for 
adoption.  Intended status Informational?  That to me is a show-stopper (even 
if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!)

Tom Petch


Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Christian Hopps]

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 12:04 PM, tom petch  wrote:
> 
> From: Christian Hopps
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54
> > On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch  > > wrote:
> >
> > From: Lsr mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
> > Christian Hopps mailto:cho...@chopps.org>>
> > Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
> >
> > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> >
> >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/ 
> > 
> >
> > Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Object, strongly.
> >
> > In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> > related to that module.
> >
> > A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> > untouched.  Thus
> > the Abstract is wrong
> > the Introduction is wrong
> > IANA Considerations  are wrong
> > and so on.
> >
> > This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects 
> > such as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> > credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to 
> > judge whether or not the YANG is suitable.
> >
> > The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect 
> > RFC published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references 
> > are listed as Informative.
> >
> > And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> > Informational.
> >
> > I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> > adoption!
> 
> Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
> that the work is done or even close to being done.
> 
> That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
> considering a WGLC on this document. :)
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for 
> adoption.  Intended status Informational?  That to me is a show-stopper (even 
> if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!)

At least in LSR these would be seen as WGLC blockers not necessarily adoption 
blockers.

Adoption is generally blocked when the intent or direction of the draft is not 
one which the WG wants to take, or if no-one actually wanted to work on the 
document, etc. It is not necessarily a quality check, unless of course the WG 
thinks that the quality would or could never be improved, that also could block 
adoption. A document having some problems (especially ones so obviously fixable 
and non-controversial as the ones you point out) are not a reason to block 
adoption as long as people are willing to address them.

That said, your objection of course is noted. Perhaps one of the authors can 
chime in with their intent to fix the issues you object to (or just fix them in 
a new version).

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> 
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> > IPR that applies to this draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> 
> ___
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[tom petch]

From: Christian Hopps
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54
> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch  wrote:
>
> From: Lsr  on behalf of Christian Hopps 
> 
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
>
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
>
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
>
> 
>
> Object, strongly.
>
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> related to that module.
>
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
>
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such 
> as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge 
> whether or not the YANG is suitable.
>
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
> published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are 
> listed as Informative.
>
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> Informational.
>
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
considering a WGLC on this document. :)


Chris,

as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for 
adoption.  Intended status Informational?  That to me is a show-stopper (even 
if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!)

Tom Petch


Thanks,
Chris.

>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Christian Hopps]

> On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch  wrote:
> 
> From: Lsr  on behalf of Christian Hopps 
> 
> Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19
> 
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> 
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
> 
> Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> Object, strongly.
> 
> In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
> related to that module.
> 
> A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is 
> untouched.  Thus
> the Abstract is wrong
> the Introduction is wrong
> IANA Considerations  are wrong
> and so on.
> 
> This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such 
> as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents 
> credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge 
> whether or not the YANG is suitable.
> 
> The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
> published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are 
> listed as Informative.
> 
> And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
> Informational.
> 
> I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
> adoption!

Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply 
that the work is done or even close to being done.

That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to 
considering a WGLC on this document. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
> IPR that applies to this draft.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris.
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[tom petch]

From: Lsr  on behalf of Christian Hopps 

Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/

Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.



Object, strongly.

In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text 
related to that module.

A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is untouched. 
 Thus
the Abstract is wrong
the Introduction is wrong
IANA Considerations  are wrong
and so on.

This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such as 
udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents credited to 
the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge whether or not 
the YANG is suitable.

The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC 
published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are listed 
as Informative.

And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is  
Informational.

I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for 
adoption!

Tom Petch


Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR 
that applies to this draft.

Thanks,
Chris.

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr

Re: [Lsr] WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Speaking as co-author:

I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR. 
Thanks,
Acee

On 1/5/21, 4:20 AM, "Christian Hopps"  wrote:

This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/

Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.

Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any 
IPR that applies to this draft.

Thanks,
Chris.

___
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr