Re: Last Call: <draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-04.txt> (YANG Data Model for L3VPN Service Delivery) to Proposed Standard

[Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

On 10/13/2017 11:55 PM, Benoit Claise wrote:
...
> Since RFC8049 is not implementable and therefore not implemented,

That's rather a leap of faith.  The fact that spec is badly broken
and probably should not have been published in the first place isn't
of itself going to stop someone from using it as the basis for an
implementation of *something*.  RFC 1065 is a great example of something
quite unimplementable as specified (its usage of ASN.1 MACRO
notation is gobbledygook) yet nonetheless saw rather wide deployment.
If there is a need for something, folks are pretty good at DWIM.

It may well be true that there are no implementations of this module,
but the rationale given is most unconvincing, particularly given the
importance of module name/content stability in stitching this stuff 
together.

> keeping the same YANG module name seems about right.

This group seems to be rather attached to module names, and
in ways at odds with the on-the-wire significance of those names.
Seems like some thought needs to be given to configuration management.

Randy