Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Wilton" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 2:04 PM
>
> Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an
> Informational RFC that defined the YANG datastores?

No but yes but ...

The rules say no but the exception is that the IESG can approve such a
downref (and other kinds of downref) after which it is listed as an
approved downref, on the IETF website, so the process need only be
performed once for a given target RFC for a given type of downref.

That said, I think that the rule is sound, and the question of why an
Informational RFC should be suitable for a Normative Reference should be
asked, at least once.  Originally it meant that there was no need to
reissue an historic RFC to upgrade its status to be what it probably
should have been in the first place but now the process is far more
widely used.

And I think that revised datastores should be Standards Track!  The
SNMPv3 Architecture is INTERNET STANDARD which is the kind of model that
I have in mind.

Tom Petch

> 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