IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Tue, 12 September 2017 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 85C85132EC0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 e39d-GwAlbmH for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm3nam03on0091.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C144126B6D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=OUdH2fATtIaqLcgBKlHmAL8QxXv6qzKPa1hFrAKoaII=; b=Kd237XNxnTTTWrGZZYtotPtwCGtRp8HOQw/S1K1Q0r5aM3Iz2a+vIlIBGbqa9GuaYte3wI2IVRJGqq0uv34mWl7yPCUKXfm9Q5MIv3KLd+HWi/2NxitZx1fLGMNouoKgAvPvZM9GxZlVJVv6iozD1KZj0K2g5CrsPX80HRGvutE=
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.149) by BLUPR05MB945.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.204.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.56.4; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:29:57 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) by BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) with mapi id 15.20.0035.010; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:29:57 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
Thread-Index: AQHTKwidsbGmXJI3xUq38jMsPZskJKKxUSYA
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:29:57 +0000
Message-ID: <BF141879-A1E4-439F-9AB2-52EC0B63155F@juniper.net>
References: <fd7e4552-4ad1-211a-264b-f493a22ff5a6@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <fd7e4552-4ad1-211a-264b-f493a22ff5a6@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB945; 6:le8YDeMOGqvywvxyB7I0oJX7e0OiIA/42RevI1HNghZXPfn8JVXtBs3L4c+B5ROqfGVmA6+YYsbLVDLFdtyo0idIZJDviJj4IO7boVOzfe+NNKXr+CWRoTnBwV6yMrRwG9YH5SstAvR5XRjs9lAh92IT5Pv76qMw0vOtqYYt4fgie7/YBsi4fFfoPfH58lv7755Jyik1c5SvPD1uhdmNt138EpIwRacxFszsm2j2EX/rE88YOty+9NYE95NBZJMg4hS+8g72myT43GloIi+PILC2GPbFtPzl/+cSQ858ij3fzGetwoo6qCfz4HDIsQo1HPAY+8A1auELtyHK2h80+w==; 5:aMWaqYjjCHqyv6yHUeEiKmBImi6JxEVH5H8CkTJlNccxSwrd646w88ECHE+4bgbcUsZdVheAjlau3IBdNjU/t0IiXrUqt9vvWIfTxqwUGLIAKLMLU8a0CAcegppUDxDAp2MIgypsEfdkAKT8kcB5Qw==; 24:TlSixMovYMNpn6jmJI0wSnl1BJwFPIw5RTacNOR8klGYKSYVYEgbNGQFx8uE+1ym3c6BW5LEPhh7iPZTYWN9xmQt5z/PbgRBR4vkmENCvIo=; 7:BBo8vM53kaTlCZtKkyHI2+yWviIdL+HzDYQZjaqn0IOh2UcFZyBvyjBWbVXoykubE8nih66tPXdw4gbyZiMLY6A9b3eANqmbcwSJbcVbA6YmymVzXW1t3qmqt6mrh4+YF1PVWFRF+VgQFhm4ct/0B7JlLxUzNFQkI/Fv+AQMqjBtvrUwi5/GZ3poDQaneowCnqkpgltag51io0Sm5z1tDnsDD/DASXCadFOUr8bIB/4=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4725e447-2777-4458-397b-08d4fa0c458e
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(300000502095)(300135100095)(22001)(2017030254152)(300000503095)(300135400095)(48565401081)(2017052603199)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB945;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR05MB945:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014)(21748063052155);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR05MB945F7AC3C8592FF7DD85EBBA5690@BLUPR05MB945.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123555025)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558100)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB945; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB945;
x-forefront-prvs: 042857DBB5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(199003)(54094003)(377454003)(189002)(24454002)(66066001)(229853002)(82746002)(36756003)(189998001)(97736004)(83506001)(6436002)(54896002)(86362001)(81166006)(8676002)(3660700001)(236005)(68736007)(81156014)(5660300001)(4001350100001)(83716003)(478600001)(77096006)(7736002)(2906002)(6512007)(6306002)(99286003)(9326002)(106356001)(6116002)(2900100001)(33656002)(53546010)(105586002)(101416001)(230783001)(102836003)(2950100002)(3846002)(3280700002)(8936002)(6506006)(6486002)(53936002)(76176999)(14454004)(54356999)(50986999)(25786009)(6246003)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB945; H:BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BF141879A1E4439F9AB252EC0B63155Fjunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Sep 2017 18:29:57.8957 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB945
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/L__z8K7uBYT-j0uyOcSKUZoUjAo>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 18:30:03 -0000

Hi Benoit,

BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability metric that applies to BCPs.
YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another update to this document
in the not too distant future.  Does that disqualify it in any way?

Kent


On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of bclaise@cisco.com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

I'm wondering if it's not time to classify draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP, as opposed to informational

This text would need to change:

   This document is similar to the Structure of Management

   Information

   version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent

   and structure.  However, since that document was written a decade

   after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was published as a 'Best

   Current Practice' (BCP).  This document is not a BCP, but rather an

   informational reference, intended to promote consistency in documents

   containing YANG modules.


Indeed, it seems to me that the consistency in YANG modules is a pretty important topic.

Feedback?

Regards, Benoit

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email