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

Martin Bjorklund <> Tue, 28 November 2017 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8351277BB; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fn8FP8AcCKQd; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE420128BB6; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B4BD1AE0336; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:54:33 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:53:13 +0100
Message-Id: <>
From: Martin Bjorklund <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] comment on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:54:37 -0000


Lou Berger <> 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?