On 4/24/14, 6:16 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-precis-framework-16: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-precis-framework/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- More of a series of question than a COMMENT. Disclaimer: the PRECIS
work is very far from my comfort zone, so there might be a little bit of
eduction involved here.
You have identified IdentifierClass and FreeformClass.
As OPS AD, I'm wondering whether future OPS data models should take these
classes into account.
Let me explain. We have:
SMI Textual Convention (RFC 2579). For example: SnmpAdminString
YANG typedef (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-7.3)
IPFIX data types (RFC 7011)
AAA
Should we ideally start specifying our data model strings according to
these classes, to facilitate strings comparison operations? Should we
start defining new SMI TC, YANG typedef, or IPFIX data types? Is there
some education required in OPS?
I guess that there is no action for the authors at this point, and the
next step is an informal discussion with Pete.
Yes, I think that chatting with Pete about it is a good idea.
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
