[netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 11 September 2017 14:16 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 958AA13309D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ebUnm11G6Lcw for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B8E113309C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2242; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505139405; x=1506349005; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=BdDw0vIVZ7b7tMu5uDVwFlvTMwm3mlXAbxvuxeztwZs=; b=IYGRs3uwz37peSFWaOy+7YGOhd34/jmSA5C0xJ6UepZNQagxbK5cBMCG 5SJPE+EjYigBtBdUL/IlokaLc2mUWy2csrt5E2XJ+SVR9mSbfdBEPEMI+ S+eanQuvZFyv7jf1/9iRBAQckrXoLfrFVBxDAPvsSNJfRlWPd96H9VGeb U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C8BgCbmbZZ/xbLJq1cGwEBAQMBAQEJAQEBhS2EHosVkHWRFYVNggQKiiQUAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFQnUBPQJfDQgBAYotrCWCJyeLDwELASWDK4NSgg6HPINLgmEFoHSUUYtUhx2NV4dUgTk2IYENMiEIHBWHZz6JdQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,378,1500940800"; d="scan'208,217";a="697104588"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Sep 2017 14:16:43 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8BEGgH1007076 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:16:43 GMT
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <fd7e4552-4ad1-211a-264b-f493a22ff5a6@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:16:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------76B3CE8ABD6C047ECD13EFCC"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/MW4-jsAyQNvMG-zbbxLLGp0h5u0>
Subject: [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: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:16:46 -0000
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
- [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP? Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Andy Bierman