Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 996A71333AC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:02:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 BP2Q0fZRZPXi for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0DC41333DD for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505487721; x=1506697321; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=olAQiD52vrxnJiCnA+yHErb3gKeoDGONZg83ByyLWVo=; b=Th1JkUDe/Qt9v5nxLqs1rP836HjvEcn8aV6iOi2wT+jZfoJ5Rk4G9NFA AKvUMefLhesJlXwOAdOLUrplgeA5Qb0lgehXdawL03PKv1XD+M/kSy+fQ 18WW8bjjup28cYFJ2coIqGPYgZv4hVedR53cB3Z6kHaQOBtYh7s+4oOgh 4=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,397,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="654645127"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Sep 2017 15:01:59 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8FF1wpJ027793; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:01:58 GMT
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <14299503-509D-43BE-A938-0B7B88C3B249@juniper.net> <36ba3d4b-1ae1-0666-12cf-db41e172924b@cisco.com> <75739d75-da96-b340-2403-d0949ac54ed7@labn.net> <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net> <1505471909.18681.7.camel@nic.cz> <D5E15F4A.C80F5%acee@cisco.com>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8326bb01-63a6-9746-098b-d693b12a2396@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:01:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D5E15F4A.C80F5%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/VMlJsJkyBVJLWwbcClBfD9ntkFY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:02:04 -0000


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"
> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> 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
>>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> -- 
>> Ladislav Lhotka
>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod