> On Jan 5, 2021, at 12:04 PM, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Christian Hopps > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54 > > On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > From: Lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of > > Christian Hopps <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > 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/ > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/> > > > > Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021. > > > > <tp> > > > > 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 The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect 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. :) > > <tp> > 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
