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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 31 March 2022 19:58

Borrowing  an e-mail to reply to

Why does draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server
register with IANA the same prefix as
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server?

In passing I always like it when a YANG Doctor says that is is unnecessary to include the class name in the identifier of an instance of a class so that http-listen-feature would be overkill
as for me is restconf-client-grouping et alia.

Tom Petch



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.

Thanks,
Kent


On Mar 31, 2022, at 1:42 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:33 AM tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
From: netconf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Wei Wang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 30 March 2022 10:11

I oppose adoption.

The WG has too many I-D outstanding for too many years, which other WG are awaiting,

We should finish some of the existing work first.


There is a direct correlation between "committed resources" and "RFC publication".
An adoption call now means:

   "This work is useful to me. The WG (not me though)
     should spend time writing, reviewing and implementing this work."

A WG draft needs contributors and reviewers throughout the entire process.
Your suggestion of "finishing what is on your plate" used to be built into the
process, because you needed a charter extension to add a work item.

Now it seems we have a more multi-threaded process, where many drafts are in
progress at once. This seems to work for the CORE WG.  There are few (if any)
drafts that the entire WG contributes to, but enough stakeholders for most drafts to get
each one done.


Tom Petch


Andy

Hi,
    I support the adoption of this draft.

Wei Wang
China Telecom
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Mahesh Jethanandani" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2022 01:31 PM
To: "Netconf"<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;
Subject: [netconf] WG adoption poll for draft-wwlh-netconf-list-pagination

Hi WG,

The authors presented the following draft in IETF 112, and there was interest in adopting the draft as a WG item.

 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wwlh-netconf-list-pagination-00<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wang-netconf-adaptive-subscrip>

Since this call is coming close to IETF 113, the chairs decided to extend the adoption poll to 4 weeks. This poll will end on April 4, and will decide whether this document should be made a WG document or not. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft by the WG. Indications that the draft has been read will be also be appreciated. The Intended Status of the draft is Standards Track.

A separate IPR call will be issued on the draft.

Thanks.

Mahesh and Kent (as co-chairs)


_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf