Subject: [lmap] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:14:11 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-17: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lmap-information-model/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be
informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see ma-report-result-tags) ?
And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?
- Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple
ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!
- Sec 3.7.: "There is no mechanism to prioritise one schedule over
another or to mutex scheduled tasks."
  Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important
to have!
- Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?
- The regristry concept is rather unclear to me as it suddently shows up
in section 3.10. Especially what's a role in this context
(ma-registry-role)? Example?

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:25:04 +0100

Because this is what the charter says.

  Jul 2014 - Submit the LMAP Information models I-D to the IESG for consideration as Standards track RFC

There are two data models implementing this information model, IETF's
YANG data model and BBF's data model. Does this qualify for standards
track? I don't know.

> And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?

Options are passed to tasks, tags are not.

> ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!

Yes. A measurement task may send a packet train that allows to derives
different metrics (aka functions).

>   Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important

Why would this be important to have? I am familiar with at least one
bigger measurement infrastructure that does not have this. Note that
you can gate things via tasks, i.e., you setup sequential schedules
and if some gating is needed your first task in the schedule takes
care of the gating logic.

> - Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?

I think this is a stylistic question. Some like to read top-down, some
like to read bottom-up. The structure has been top-down since the
early days of the document and so far nobody reported an issue with
that.

> (ma-registry-role)? Example?

The registry is mentioned a couple of times before section 3.10. See
in particular the 2nd paragraph in section 3.9.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>