Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[e-mail]>
To: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:32 PM
>
> > On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an
Informational RFC that defined the YANG datastores?
>
> My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular
set of datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed.

Lada

You say 'set of datastores' which I would agree with but I would propose
that the concept of a datastore, which could be a different term, just
semantically equivalent to that of 'datastore', is still needed for
validation.  The scope of validation is a closed set of data and the
current term for that is datastore (as opposed to module, model or any
other unit of data)..

Tom Petch






>
> Lada
>
> >
> > If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is
actually required to support the revised datastores draft) then does
that mean we would also need to have a new version of YANG?
> >
> > That would potentially seem like a backwards step.  Also what would
it mean for an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is
using a mix of YANG modules with different versions?
> >
> > I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be
standards track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting
that they are really only in the one draft at this stage because it
seemed like that would make it easier for folks to review and comment
on.
> >
> > Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >> I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis.
> >>
> >> Mehmet
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM
> >>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>;
> >>> Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>
> >>> Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
> >>>
> >>> Juergen,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for the input.  I think your point highlights how the
technical
> >>> contents of a document drives the intended status of a document.
> >>>
> >>> Lou
> >>>
> >>> PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not*
typically
> >>> included in charters and are not included in the distributed
version.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think
the DS
> >>>>> concept document is Informational in nature and should be
published as
> >>> an
> >>>>> Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in
> >> diverse
> >>>>> protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an
overlapping
> >>>>> between NETCONF and NETMOD charters.
> >>>> The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity
definitions
> >>>> for datastores and origins and these definitions better be
standards
> >>>> track.
> >>>>
> >>>> /js
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >>>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
Germany
> >>>> Fax:   [phone]
<http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod