Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 24 January 2018 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 BFD3112421A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:07:52 -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] 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 ShTeL33avLgr for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 380F512420B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 05:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id 87FA71820412; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:07:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1749418203F6; Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:07:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BF9C1543-4471-4CB3-9A26-451F45A2E4B6@juniper.net>
References: <BF9C1543-4471-4CB3-9A26-451F45A2E4B6@juniper.net>
Mail-Followup-To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netmod\@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:07:43 +0100
Message-ID: <878tcnz9pc.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1Wru454SwVeISO01u6f0o2CyZ6U>
Subject: Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount
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: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:07:53 -0000

Hi,

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:

> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on Nov 6th.
>
> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.

I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
*both* document authors?

>
> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> that normatively reference the current draft.
>
> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],

Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
than hand-waving.

I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.

Lada

> we also agree
> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> supporting rfc7895bis.
>
> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and advancement. 
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>
> Thanks,
> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67