Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 05:07:06PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> As co-chair, I have two minds:
> 
>   1) requests a fix and redo the adoption poll
>   2) realize that it's a living doc and regardless
>      how it begins, the WG can sort it out in time.
>      i.e., we're adopting to work on the problem,
>      not necessarily the specific solution.
> 
> While (1) seems more proper, given the timing of 
> things, I'm willing to go for (2).   To this extent,
> the comments being made now be thought to carry
> the same weight as Last Call comments.  The chairs
> will discuss this again when making a determination
> on the adoption poll.

It seems there are questions about the scope of this document and
ideally there would be some agreement about the scope of the work
covered by the document at adoption time.
 
> As contributor, can we please not call this "YANG
> instance data"?  - that means something else to 
> me.  This seems to be more about capturing data
> about a server instances.  So maybe "YANG-based
> Server Instance Data"?  (open to suggestions!)

What does 'YANG instance data' mean to you?

Why does adding 'sever' make things better?

Why can't I use this format outside a 'server'?

I think we do use phrases such as 'instantiated YANG data tree' in
other documents, so 'instance data' (which is perhaps a shorthand)
does not seem surprising to me.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>