Subject: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:04:32 -0700

Dear RTGWG,

The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model as the working group document.

The draft has been stable and provides all the additional arp pieces that are not in RFC8344, it has been presented at IETF 102 and no substantial comments have been received.

Please indicate support or no-support by August 09, 2018

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this

email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. 

The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not

advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each

author and each individual that has contributed to the document.

Cheers,

Jeff & Chris

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 01:45:56 +0000

Hi Jeff,
I support WG adoption.
Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <[email-masked]> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 at 9:04 PM
To: Routing WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

Dear RTGWG,

Cheers,
Jeff & Chris

---

From: "dingxiaojian (A)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 03:26:11 +0000

Hi all,

I'm not aware of any IPRs related to this document.

Support WG adoption as the co-author.

Best Regards,
Xiaojian

From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 9:05 AM
To: RTGWG <[email-masked]>
Cc: rtgwg-chairs <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Request for WG adoption - draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model

Dear RTGWG,

Cheers,
Jeff & Chris

---

From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 20:26:13 +0000

I support WG adoption of this document.

Regards,
Reshad.

Dear RTGWG,

Cheers,
Jeff & Chris

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:32:24 +0100

As a co-author I support adoption of this work.

I'm not aware of any IPR related to this document.

Although this draft needs some minor further refinement and discussion, 
which will naturally happen as part of the WG process, I think that this 
draft is a good start and is heading in the right direction.

As stated in the RTGWG at IETF 102, I think that it is in IETF's 
interests to get YANG models quickly published for configuration models 
that cover the majority of standard configuration being used in the 
industry, and I see this draft as another step towards that goal.

Thanks,
Rob

On 26/07/2018 02:04, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
>
> Dear RTGWG,
>
> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt 
> draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model as the working group document.
>
> The draft has been stable and provides all the additional arp pieces 
> that are not in RFC8344, it has been presented at IETF 102 and no 
> substantial comments have been received.
>

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 09:01:12 +0000

<rant>
This I-D has some of the usual things wrong with it that need fixing at
some state and, as ever, I like to see the editors fix at least some of
them before adoption rather than leaving them until later, since they
then seem to linger, perhaps until WG Last Call or IETF Last Call (yes,
I am thinking of WG such as MPLS:-)

There is a fundamental (to me) principle in engineering of get it right
first time, or at least as early as possible; later means more
expensive, more time consuming for everyone involved.  I link this to
the discussion on the main IETF list of the difficulty of finding ADs
because so much time is involved in being an AD; yes, and part of that
is us giving them poor quality documents with defects that could have
been fixed even before adoption..
</rant>

This I-D

- fails to mention whether or not it is NMDA compliant in the Abstract
and Introduction

- fails to use the current definitions of terminology from RFC8342

- references the old version of RFC2119 key words

- has no Note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace the YANG module
dates with date of publication.  I suggest a Note asking them to replace
XXXX with the number assigned to this I-D at the start of the I-D rather
than asking them to replace 'draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 ' which,
should this I-D be adopted, will be wrong

- has no Copyright statement in the YANG module

- lacks references for several imported modules.

- starts Section 4 well with a good sentence but fails to mention most
imports

- has serious formatting problems with the text in the YANG module with
lines being way too long for an RFC (it is probably not a coincidence
that other I-Ds have had the same problem -  the right options in pyang
fix this AFAIK)

- has no IANA Considerations; no IANA Considerations means that you are
not producing a YANG module no matter what it looks like.

- Security Considerations are much better than usual but lack detail of
sensitive nodes

- Tree diagrams has the right reference but then spoils it by including
text about the symbols

- has out of date references
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis]
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis]
which belie the claimed date of  June 28, 2018 for this I-D; 2018-01-27
looks more like it:-)

- has arp as a Informative Reference - Normative I think.

I note that there is  no IPV6 in the examples but that seems right since
ARP is IPv4.

The English is flaky in places but I am fine with that; that can be
fixed once the text has been discussed and agreed - in fact there is no
point in producing perfect English if we are then going to discuss and
change it - whereas the points above can mostly be fixed before now.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Tantsura" <[email-masked]>
To: "RTGWG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "rtgwg-chairs" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2018 2:04 AM

>> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:27:30 -0700

Tom,

Many thanks for your comments!
Authors - I'd expect you to address them while the document is in adoption state.

Tom - specifically to "flaky English" comment - your help to making the document better would be highly appreacited.

Cheers,
Jeff

On 7/31/18, 02:01, "tom petch" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    <rant>

    This I-D

    

    

    

    

    
    
    Tom Petch