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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 28 November 2017 09:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8351277BB; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:37 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fn8FP8AcCKQd; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE420128BB6; Tue, 28 Nov 2017 01:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.60]) by mail.tail-f.com (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: <20171128.105313.1322848757325572415.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: lberger@labn.net
Cc: draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2eb0409-de68-0bcb-31be-c2acf2acb926@labn.net>
References: <a2eb0409-de68-0bcb-31be-c2acf2acb926@labn.net>
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1D2r-RNASfwme44AeuveUUzVwDg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] comment on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 09:54:37 -0000

Hi,

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 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