Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 14:52 +0000:
> rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy
> module, but does it actually say it?  (I can't find it)

The modules contained therein have different names and namespaces, so there is
no formal ancestry. I would prefer to keep the modules from RFC 8022 as they are
- some weirdos may still want to use them.

> 
> The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to
> have a meaningful impact in the wild.  I think Juergen said they had this
> issue with MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they republish the
> legacy MIBs with deprecated status.
> 
> I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's
> general agreement to do it.  Are the authors okay with it, or are there any
> better suggestions?
> 
> PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a substatement [I
> just added this omission to the yang-next tracker].  I think the only way to
> "deprecate a module" is to instead deprecate the all the
> nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module.  Kind of ugly, but it's for a
> deprecated module, so who care, right?  ;)

I think it is unnecessary. If somebody needs adding such a module to the data
model, he/she should probably have a reason to do so, such as data implemented
on the server.

Lada  

> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > Hi Kent & Lou,
> > 
> > When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process 
> > on these drafts?
> > 
> > I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for 
> > adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open question 
> > of what to do with the old state tree, but presumably that could be 
> > solved after the draft has been adopted?
> 
> I see an update for the third was published yesterday
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02)  that
> clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably
> obsolete 8022.  And now that this intended direction is clear in the
> draft we could poll it.
> 
> I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the
> rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than
> just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes
> marked as deprecated.  I think you're right that this could be done post
> adoption.  Of course others are free to disagree.
> 
> I check with Kent and see what he thinks.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> > 
> > 
> > On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > > Hey folks,
> > > 
> > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing RFCs
> > > to align them with NMDA.  The first batch have been published as
> > > individual drafts:
> > > 
> > > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
> > > 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
> > > 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00
> > > 
> > > Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the related
> > > adoption calls.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kent (and Lou)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > > .
> > > 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67