Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:13:11 +0000

This concludes the adoption poll for notification-messages.  The
chairs understand that there are concerns around the specifics 
of the proposed solution, but that there is general support for
the problem statement. We have already determined that there is
no known IPR pertaining to this work. Thereby this draft is now
adopted as a WG chartered work item.

Authors, please resubmit draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
as draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-00.

Thanks,
Kent (and Mahesh)

--

All,

This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a
NETCONF working group document:

  draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01 [1]

Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like
to see addressed once the document is a WG document.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01

Thank you,
Kent (and Mahesh)

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

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 19:41:18 +0000

Regarding the resolution of the issues with the proposed solution,
the expectation is that the WG can fix them now that the document
is adopted, as oppose to the authors needing to fix them before
the adoption.

Kent

--

Thanks,
Kent (and Mahesh)

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 16:33:52 +0100

Kent

Martin made the point in this thread that there were a number of
interacting issues which need resolving, around notification headers.
This suggests we need an agreement of what goes into which document,
something on which I do not see consensus.

So we seem to be adopting a document when we have not decided what role
it will fill.

Tom Petch

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 13:18:28 +0000

Hi Tom,

I appreciate the concern, but I think the role of this document
is obvious, or at least well understood to needing to define a
new 'notification' message format using yang-data.  This should
have been done before, even before discussing new message headers,
we're just only discovering it now.  It's my expectation that
the authors of this draft will have the -01 version out ASAP to
make that adjustment.

Martin expressed a larger concern as well, one that I share, 
regarding the general state of the drafts.  Part of the issue
seems to be that how they fit together isn't easy to understand.
To address this, I've asked the authors to prepare an overview
document that I hope will be shared with the WG shortly. Another
issue with these drafts, I think, is use of uncommon terms and
extraneous text leading to a sense of open-endedness. Hopefully
the authors will update all the drafts will an eye towards 
addressing these editorial issues as well.

Once all this is done, I believe the drafts will be in good
shape for thorough reviews, perhaps for the first time.  I ask
the authors to please refrain from adding more features until
this stability is reached.

Kent // co-chair