IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] [Anima] Call for adoption: draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis, ends December 19th, 2021

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 12 January 2022 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2A21B3A00E1; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:24:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
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 KswVSWVS9LyK; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:24:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3A553A00E0; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:24:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A7138C79; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:30:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fIWN4VbdQvuR; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:30:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D421C38C77; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:30:26 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1641951026; bh=T60PKWDfBDigShsfVKgbGu69PEOIz29//ZNrY/QEj/U=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=j9iz95Wx1In7+VC5kwIgsbY/E/9pvfmSNf0nHBbq72fyR22NKE63qYE+dcyTYtiEB tM4+x87A69oGdGABGG3EMt80fAgdUOc3K3KIoeKPljSnV1AUPrgGGKjBNjywj1RPTW 7uee3ZISKXPjv4LhvSlJfGAZ7DtHsVqF+oEvel258XZjxud2gQd1TCoeZUbIHoCOfD KEeT4ZjshTem4GMQnxHquAFW2EdKvb0XgAu92gupZ6eXeQFKvavwu/nhM6d92ndWAK RwQC66aU670IzrISXPk5hERh1DBQS168Yj8cLeIP8n6HP8g4E1WSTuBcnjJFxhE24o Xz2dXAaQMMnvg==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A77F0; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:24:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, "anima@ietf.org" <anima@ietf.org>, netmod@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <aca25f54659b422687278d7a5af9b67a@huawei.com>
References: <aca25f54659b422687278d7a5af9b67a@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 20:24:32 -0500
Message-ID: <18290.1641950672@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/7UquNeccMZnVcxLBE5KfLUvqSyY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Anima] Call for adoption: draft-richardson-anima-rfc8366bis, ends December 19th, 2021
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: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 01:24:44 -0000

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
    >> Are you saying that we should update to RFC8791?  Do you think that
    >> this is a bug-fix?

    > [Qin Wu] No, have clarified in the separate message, I think both
    > yang-data and sx:structure can be used, but sx:structure is not
    > targeted to replace yang-data, but RESTCONFbis in the future may
    > consider to decouple yang-data from RFC8040.

I have not yet merged https://github.com/anima-wg/voucher/pull/17
when producing draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366-00.

I would like the WG to review the results a bit more first, and I would like
a bit more assurance that moving from RESTCONF->RFC8791 would be considered an
acceptable bug fix when going from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email