Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:14 PM

> > Kent
> >
> > 7 is a monster because of the XML encoding rules, not because of the
> > revised datastore concepts.  And datastores, as you say, are more
> > important - revising the XML encoding rules is cosmetic, not needed
> > technically and, as I said, only make sense when the NETMOD WG has
done
> > its bit; and the revised charter being discussed on the NETMOD list
> > makes no mention of this work.
> >
> > So scrap NETCONF XML encoding rules.
> >
> > Tom Petch
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Such changes fall under the "maintaining" clauses in the NETMOD
charter:
>
>   a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This effort entails
>      periodically updating the specification to address new
requirements
>      as they arise.
>
>   d) Maintaining encodings for YANG modeled data.  This effort entails
>      updating encodings already defined by the NETMOD working group
>      (XML and JSON) to accommodate changes to the YANG specification,
>      and defining new encodings that are needed, and yet do not fall
>      under the charter of any other active IETF working group.

Kent

I was going to be sarcastic but resisted the temptation:-)

I am unable to reconcile those paragraphs with

'NETCONF XML Encoding Rules from RFC 7950 will
be moved to RFC6241bis.'

To me, they are on different planets; one puts XML encoding rules in the
NETCONF WG and the NETCONF RFC, the other places them in the NETMOD WG
and the NETMOD RFC.

Tom Petch

> Our charter does not call out every little thing so we don't have to
> update it all the time.  Note, the Milestones do need to be updated
> frequently, but our WG can do that without IESG approval.
>
> Kent
>
>
>