Re: [netmod] comment on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     I was looking at how yd:yang-data (this draft) relates to
> rc:yang-data (rfc8040).  The document seems to imply that this draft's
> extension is a replacement in one place (see abstract) , is supplemental
> in another (sec 1, plus augment-yang-data example) and perhaps
> orthogonal in a final (that rc:yang-data is still used/referenced at
> all).  I think the document should be clear as to it's objective with
> respect to  rc:yang-data.

Agreed.  It is intended to replace rc:yang-data.  I have fixed the
example that used rc:yang-data.  Do you think we need any changes to
section 1 to clarify this?

> As rc:yang-data is currently defined in a protocol specific way, I (with
> any/all hats) would prefer to see a definition of yang-data that would
> work for any protocol that encodes and transports yang.  I also
> generally think that having two definitions for basically the same
> mechanism isn't beneficial to implementors of IETF RFCs, so this leads
> me to suggest that if this document becomes a WG document it should
> deprecate rc:yang-data.

I assume this would formally mean that this document would "Update"
RFC 8040, and then in the document have text that explains that
rc:yang-data is deprecated?  Or do you suggest that we actually do a
8040bis that formally marks the rc:yang-data extension as
"deprecated", and instead uses yd:yang-data?


/martin