Re: [netmod] Does defining a feature require the module be implemented?

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> writes:

> Hi Andy,
>
>> I feel vindicated, but also feel that Martin is right about this being the solution for now.  I don't even feel that it is necessarily bad.  But I do think we should act on this in some way.  Here are some options:
>> 
>> 1) put a "document only" errata on RFC 8525.
>> 2) put a "document only" errata on RFC 7950.
>> 3) put a "document only" errata on RFC 8407.
>> 4) file a YANG Next issue.
>> 5) some combination of the above.
>> 6) anything else?
>> 
>> 
>> I do not think an Errata can fix this issue because the split
>> between 'module' and 'import-only-module' was intentional.
>
> My intention for using the "hold for document update" Errata (I
> wrote "document only" before) is only to better document the
> behavior that exists currently, so it doesn't have to be

But the alternative behaviour exists as well. I don't think this can be fixed by an erratum.

Lada

> rediscovered again later.  Martin pointed to an RFC section that
> didn't list features explicitly, leaving it open for interpretation.
> Patching such sections would be good.  As for RFC 8407, maybe
> Section 4.17 (Feature Definitions) could say something?
>
> Following are a couple excerpts from https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/processing-rfc-errata:
>
> Hold for Document Update - The erratum is not a necessary update to the RFC. However, any future update of the document might consider this erratum, and determine whether it is correct and merits including in the update. 
>
> And (I added the underline):
>
> Changes which are simply stylistic issues or simply make things read better should be Hold for Document Update. 
>
> Would you be willing to offer some text for an RFC 8407 "hold for document update" errata?   If Martin does the same for the section he found, I think we would be covered.  It seems is worthy effort, yes?
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>> 
>> Going back to iana-crypt-hash (again).
>> 
>>  - the features are not intended for use in any if-feature-stmts
>>  - each feature is related to one variant for values of the crypt-hash type
>> 
>> Features are like identities.
>> They are completely decoupled from the schema tree and simply
>> use the parent module to create a unique QName for reference in other statements.
>> 
>> Perhaps we should work on some proposed edits for yang-next.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> Kent
>> 
>> Andy
>>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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