IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Mon, 18 March 2019 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016991904d58-4b6ff582-ac4c-4cea-98b6-b491d18508c0-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3F9128B36 for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fa0P1qOMWGUF for <netmod-ver-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9E65127963 for <netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1552925347; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=pzbMClYf0QpZ1YVVzJw6/C/Xpr/nDE7eD5q6JM9pRfM=; b=VCNVbm31H6UM0x2SvsbRIaTpMSB7dSJKsgG61gPgRLw+RFAZYRB7ISIfjMA2mgHn 4g2b7pa1by2vkwhiEjXsPByDsRky2L8ra04UvcANdp/9wcscDuVjfW2bo4f3utCalP2 oVEKWCIRgw4MEh0XsZ1VkfLHsZYfAhygb+c4Rf44=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16D57)
In-Reply-To: <CF393539-CB37-40DF-82CF-26AC00E96AA9@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:09:07 +0000
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0100016991904d58-4b6ff582-ac4c-4cea-98b6-b491d18508c0-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <0100016978b80dcd-31f317a5-443b-400a-98b3-2bfc91841bdc-000000@email.amazonses.com> <C22DBA1F-6683-4035-81EE-6C8754FA9193@cisco.com> <99826DF9-84F5-4F60-8890-972CB30BF8CE@gmail.com> <cb1a6242-05f9-a2dd-828b-3a2ea10147cc@cisco.com> <EC098B94-9A79-4724-8254-5F755288017A@gmail.com> <b808b57b-1327-6c78-442b-5fcb0df61d9a@cisco.com> <CF393539-CB37-40DF-82CF-26AC00E96AA9@gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.03.18-54.240.8.96
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod-ver-dt/cnGokwe6bZ2abiJwdHThyj2TqF0>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:11:02 -0700
Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02
X-BeenThere: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NetMod WG YANG Model Versioning Design Team <netmod-ver-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod-ver-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt>, <mailto:netmod-ver-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:09:11 -0000

I haven’t discussed with my co-chairs yet, but my going-in assumption is that the draft is adopted, unless an valid objection arises.  The poll is just a formality.  

As I wrote in the adoption call message, I think that it is *good* for WGs to have formal consensus for requirements.  To this end, I also support doing a Last Call on the draft. 

The only thing I’m unsure of is if it’s worth publishing as an RFC, or if it’s better expiring like opstate-reqs. 

The answer only lies in its historical value as, regardless that outcome, we will standardize the same versioning solution.  That is, the value seems to be only for us and only for now.  right?

That said, I have no real objection to publishing it.  I’m only trying to be sensitive to the IESG/Editor time. 

K.  // as a co-chair

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email