Re: [netmod] comment on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

See below.


On November 28, 2017 4:55:17 AM Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>     I was looking at how yd:yang-data (this draft) relates to
>> rc:yang-data (rfc8040).  The document seems to imply that this draft's
>> extension is a replacement in one place (see abstract) , is supplemental
>> in another (sec 1, plus augment-yang-data example) and perhaps
>> orthogonal in a final (that rc:yang-data is still used/referenced at
>> all).  I think the document should be clear as to it's objective with
>> respect to  rc:yang-data.
>
> Agreed.  It is intended to replace rc:yang-data.  I have fixed the
> example that used rc:yang-data.  Do you think we need any changes to
> section 1 to clarify this?
>

Only that it should also reflect how the update/deprecation discussed below 
is handled.

>> As rc:yang-data is currently defined in a protocol specific way, I (with
>> any/all hats) would prefer to see a definition of yang-data that would
>> work for any protocol that encodes and transports yang.  I also
>> generally think that having two definitions for basically the same
>> mechanism isn't beneficial to implementors of IETF RFCs, so this leads
>> me to suggest that if this document becomes a WG document it should
>> deprecate rc:yang-data.
>
> I assume this would formally mean that this document would "Update"
> RFC 8040,

Yes, this looks right. although it is a bit subject to how the next point 
is addressed

> and then in the document have text that explains that
> rc:yang-data is deprecated?  Or do you suggest that we actually do a
> 8040bis that formally marks the rc:yang-data extension as
> "deprecated", and instead uses yd:yang-data?
>

This is one option. Another is to just update the rc module with 
rc:yang-data as deprecated.

At this point, since the document is still an individual draft, I suggest 
that the authors propose their preference and that the working group weigh 
in during the acceptance and normal WG processing.

Thanks,

Lou

>
> /martin
>