Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 15/09/2017 15:52, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the
> RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the
> deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way
> to achieve this.
Can we not adopt regardless?  We know that we are going to bis 8022, and 
having an adopted draft gives it a bit more legitimacy and helps other 
folks to migrate.

Or perhaps we can start the call for adoption and continue to try and 
resolve this issue at the same time ;-).  I think that it would be good 
to try and get the updated model drafts to WG LC by Singapore.

I know that it hasn't been asked yet, but I support adoption of any 8022 
bis draft that (i) provides the correct NDMA combined tree (ii) removes 
or deprecates the old state nodes :-)

Sorry, if I'm being pushy :-)
Rob


>
> I agree with Lada that deprecating all the schema nodes is unnecessary.
> However, we’ll do what it takes to reach consensus and satisfy the most
> pedantic among us.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> On 9/15/17, 6:38 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Kent Watsen píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 14:52 +0000:
>>> rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy
>>> module, but does it actually say it?  (I can't find it)
>> The modules contained therein have different names and namespaces, so
>> there is
>> no formal ancestry. I would prefer to keep the modules from RFC 8022 as
>> they are
>> - some weirdos may still want to use them.
>>
>>> The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's
>>> going to
>>> have a meaningful impact in the wild.  I think Juergen said they had
>>> this
>>> issue with MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they
>>> republish the
>>> legacy MIBs with deprecated status.
>>>
>>> I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's
>>> general agreement to do it.  Are the authors okay with it, or are there
>>> any
>>> better suggestions?
>>>
>>> PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a
>>> substatement [I
>>> just added this omission to the yang-next tracker].  I think the only
>>> way to
>>> "deprecate a module" is to instead deprecate the all the
>>> nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module.  Kind of ugly, but it's for a
>>> deprecated module, so who care, right?  ;)
>> I think it is unnecessary. If somebody needs adding such a module to the
>> data
>> model, he/she should probably have a reason to do so, such as data
>> implemented
>> on the server.
>>
>> Lada
>>
>>> Kent
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>> Hi Kent & Lou,
>>>>
>>>> When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption
>>> process
>>>> on these drafts?
>>>>
>>>> I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for
>>>> adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open
>>> question
>>>> of what to do with the old state tree, but presumably that could be
>>>> solved after the draft has been adopted?
>>> I see an update for the third was published yesterday
>>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02)  that
>>> clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably
>>> obsolete 8022.  And now that this intended direction is clear in the
>>> draft we could poll it.
>>>
>>> I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the
>>> rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than
>>> just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes
>>> marked as deprecated.  I think you're right that this could be done post
>>> adoption.  Of course others are free to disagree.
>>>
>>> I check with Kent and see what he thinks.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>>>> Hey folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising
>>> existing RFCs
>>>>> to align them with NMDA.  The first batch have been published as
>>>>> individual drafts:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
>>>>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
>>>>> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00
>>>>>
>>>>> Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the
>>> related
>>>>> adoption calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kent (and Lou)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> -- 
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod