IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 04 July 2021 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 745783A28BF; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TC0SZicEoINF; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEC243A28BA; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 16:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E6B38B00; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:23:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gojLAtENy6SF; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1640738AFD; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:23:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7831319; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 19:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
to: anima@ietf.org, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <10907.1625436805@localhost>
References: <20210625190512.GB30200@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <5025.1624653668@localhost> <DM4PR11MB5438EE27158CDEAF63F89C97B5039@DM4PR11MB5438.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <10907.1625436805@localhost>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 19:21:01 -0400
Message-ID: <29456.1625440861@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/RBWGWtEB8mhBGdeY4-8q2UfgsJI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sun, 04 Jul 2021 23:21:13 -0000

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > I propose that the WG adopt this as the -00, and then we change the document
    > to change this into an RFC7224-style IANA-maintained YANG module.
    > (In DHC WG, when we did RFC3315bis to make RFC8415 we did a -00 which was
    > whitespace equivalent to RFC3315 first, and then we amended it)

    > As I understand it, we would be creating a Registry with IANA Considerations,
    > and when documents extend the Registry, that IANA writes a new YANG module
    > (with a new date) for us.

    > I believe that given that the module gets revised, that we don't have to
    > worry about enumeration vs leaf/choice/empty.  But, if there is some
    > advantage to doing it the non-enumeration way, it would be good to understand
    > that.

But, we might want to do a WG Consensus call on the differences.
We might also want to ask a YANG Doctor to come to the ANIMA WG meeting
at the end of the Month, to explain the differences.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email