Re: [netconf] WG adoption poll for draft-wwlh-netconf-list-pagination

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 1:10 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> As author of the "client-server" work, I support blocking all adoptions
>> until it's done, with the hope that others will take an active role in
>> getting the "client-server" work over the finish line.
>>
>> Here is a concrete call for help:
>>
>>    - draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries
>>    <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-boucadair-netmod-iana-registries> discusses
>>    a need for IANA-maintain modules to be defined a certain way.
>>    - The "ssh" and "tls" client-server drafts both define
>>    IANA-maintained modules, but not exactly this way, and hence need to be
>>    updated.  For instance, there is no discussion as to why "identities" were
>>    chosen over "enumerations", and there is no XSLT script in the Appendix
>>    that can be used to generate the modules.
>>    - I'm happy to work with anyone willing to submit Pull Requests on
>>    the GitHub repos for these drafts.
>>
>>
>>
> It sure seems like the goalposts keep moving further and further away.
> Maybe if we delay another 6 months even more new requirements and MISREFs
> can be added to the heap.
>
>
> How is your statement relevant to what I wrote?  Do you think there is a
> choice in this matter?  Have you reviewed the modules in question and
> concluded that there won't be an issue in the handoff to IANA?  Yes, IANA's
> rebuttal would occur outside the WG, but who's time do you think would be "volunteered"
> to fix it?  You know, I do not get compensated for this work, right?
> What happened to this being a "WG effort"?
>
>

The first bullet mentions a work-in-progress that is not ready,
yet somehow the client-server drafts need to wait until it is done
and follow its recommendations.

In fact there may be nothing to add beyond the text in 4.11.1 of RFC 8407.
Holding the draft up for this item is not required.

Add text:

The WG selected identities based on extensibility requirements, as outlined
in RFC 8704, section 4.11.1.

The second bullet requires XSLT programming expertise and development time.
The IETF should provide any tools required, not document authors.
So the drafts will probably wait a long time because of this new
requirement.



>
> Andy
>
>
> K.
>

Andy