Re: [netmod] two options for removing /foo-state trees?

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

On 9/6/2017 2:05 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> ...

>>  2) a new module name forces an update to other modules that
>>     importing it (e.g., to resolve XPaths), that otherwise may
>>     not need to be updated.
> This is a major drawback!
I think this is a compelling consideration.

>
>>  3) the approach doesn't follow what draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines
>>     says in guideline (c), but this seems to be a minor point.
>>  4) republishing the old module with all nodes deprecated seems
>>     off, but 7950 doesn't list 'status' as a substatement to
>>     the 'module' statement, so what else can we do?
>>
>> Any other pros or cons?

I think a pro is that for models that are not widely implemented or
referenced, they are more aligned with how we expect new NMDA-compatible
models to be structured.

>>
>>
>> Another question is if all the modules have to be updated the
>> same way
> In general I'd say no.  An entirely new module might be the right
> approach in some cases, but in the majority of cases not.
I'd go the other way on this: the deprecate/obsolete/update approach
should be followed for the few modules that are widely referenced.  All
other modules should be replaced (via a name change) with NMDA
structured modules.

> For the routing modules, I don't think a new name is worth it.
Do you see it as widely implemented?  Do others agree?

>
> /martin
>
>
>> (which could block adoption of these drafts until we
>> settled on an approach), or do we let each module update in a 
>> way that suites it best base on, e.g., how deployed it is, how
>> often it's been imported by other drafts, etc.  Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> Kent  // contributor
>>
>>
>>
...