Re: [netmod] 答复: 答复: Please clarify implementation about ‘when’

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 26 September 2019 11:29 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 6A11412089D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 L_6FvWS0HMDc for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5176C120823 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 04:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:1488:fffe:6:a744:2697:a0ec:a420]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8188140E39; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:29:52 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1569497392; bh=vjuAZLW5l7DFSvnpvPavR0z0gfNMIhw6fwf4uRhOblU=; h=From:To:Date; b=euFohDwncljEfdjxDQbH+fmyZhbzB7+6M+Cr/OTFnGH/vctyEfSFa1VxMnKa4GGcg BQEKEmqd8Y25dqyqxpQRNw7QYYcsTBz+o+MWjFovuV1HfI+brqPEiVUmjWukuvGbIA lE9AyBm2Q3oe6xr/PeXB+ErA1+s7AtpI6osdrSr8=
Message-ID: <87f295bea85a4b38dd2f7775e78f53464512878b.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=F6nw=E4lder=2C_J=FCrgen?= <J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:29:52 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20190926110435.3vaqzw6pqsnker3s@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <87h84z4kmw.fsf@nic.cz> <20190926.085644.1268671875357328723.mbj@tail-f.com> <9bc06f9f3f1c87c79ccce4e1c4d40755c804875a.camel@nic.cz> <20190926.094526.272771637371098799.mbj@tail-f.com> <20190926093950.a5anv5zdbjtb7iwo@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <229de5aa1bd41ea6a30b920c9c83321903294f49.camel@nic.cz> <20190926110435.3vaqzw6pqsnker3s@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.3 at mail.nic.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/5yowQbH3HAD4b2vOk_wBWCY1eAY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiDnrZTlpI06IFBsZWFzZSBjbGFyaWZ5IGlt?= =?utf-8?b?cGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIGFib3V0IOKAmHdoZW7igJk=?=
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 11:29:57 -0000

On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 11:04 +0000, Schönwälder, Jürgen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:27:17PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > Sure, one can discuss whether this feature is useful or harmful
> > > but the only way to officially remove this is to create a new
> > > specification and to run it through the IETF process.
> > 
> > I do insist that the wording in 7950 permits my interpretation, so I don't
> > propose any change.
> 
> It does not. You cannot cherry pick sentences.

I am not aware of any cherry-picking on my side. Can you show that my
interpretation is not possible? Whatever the intent was, it is the text of the
spec that counts.

> 
> > What I propose instead is to remove such protocol-specific parts from the
> > specification of the YANG language, and clarify it in the specification of
> > individual protocols.
> 
> This is a different topic. Moving things around does not change the
> meaning (unless you change things as well while moving things around).

I wrote about clarification of protocols or server behaviour, which means
changes. It is also possible that different protocols use different approaches.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67