Re: [netmod] 🔔 CoRE Working Group Adoption call for draft-veillette-core-yang-library-05.txt

Carsten Bormann <> Thu, 25 July 2019 04:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01E3120047; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5AE29BPapax; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70EA612001E; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 45vKNz01sWzylL; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:44:02 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:44:00 -0400
Cc: Netconf <>, NETMOD WG <>,
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 585722638.705287-ac0762aa85689b1cf8d63e5de1103054
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: core <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 🔔 CoRE Working Group Adoption call for draft-veillette-core-yang-library-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 04:44:08 -0000

So this was a very thin response on a WG adoption call on the mailing list, but given the sense of the room on Tuesday, I think we can accept this as a WG draft.
We do have the WG last call as another formal opportunity to stop this if it turns out this can be done in a way that preserves full compatibility with RFC 8525.

We are now waiting for a final WGLC-ready I-D version of yang-cbor (one internal author review is outstanding), and then will WGLC the whole cluster (yang-cbor, sid, comi, core-yang-library) in the CoRE WG with a CC to the CCs of this mail.
This WGLC will not go through without a number of high-quality reviews.

Grüße, Carsten

> On Jul 11, 2019, at 09:44, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
> RFC 8525 defines a YANG data model for information about the YANG modules, datastores, and datastore schemas used by a network management server.   This data model is based on string representations of YANG identifiers.
> To be more useful in a constrained environment (CoRECONF/COMI), it is useful to have a YANG data model that can employ the efficiency of SIDs (draft-ietf-core-sid).  draft-veillette-core-yang-library-05.txt provides a straightforward translation of RFC 8525 to SID-based identification, with some legacy support removed and some other efficiencies added.  This specification complements the three other CoRECONF specifications draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor, draft-ietf-core-sid, and draft-ietf-core-comi, which we hope to ship soon.
> This starts a one-week working group adoption call.
> This is a formal call for adoption of this draft as a WG document of the CoRE WG.
> If you have read the draft and support adopting it, please say so.
> If you see a problem with adopting it as a WG document, please tell us.
> For both, remember that WG adoption does not mean that we already have consensus on all the details(*), just that this is the right working document to address the issue (and that we should address the issue in the first place); you are encouraged to mention any issues that you already know.
> This WGA call is CCed to the netconf and netmod working groups, as the expertise about YANG modules is focused there, as well as the yang-of-things non-WG mailing list.  Please respond to, or exceptionally to (for off-list comments).
> This formal WG adoption call runs until the end of July 18th.
> Grüße, Carsten
> (*) say, is the module-set index really limited to an 8-bit number?