Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 17 October 2017 08:35 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 4F18813304A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:35:14 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 jDXMLI95WwTL for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBA4B126C0F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 01:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8859; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1508229312; x=1509438912; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=o97AJyZ3m0g0akc7s9YpCkpOSBmDkmfQwZvanU3t3fY=; b=j1SDySxL2eTXaAu1bAF4n39k3Bdnhc67CaJdnTujpkTfFwd31wK16O5C a1Nc8JXRptsoFsfxH8kTOXWiRYaHQhRrORQGVLXNprusHrNJL8aipXf7f DYKumbgd0RfzeOamrLxXeohfKN8wBmrxOOWGc9/7nqHRyVs93onerNbPL k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CQAAC/v+VZ/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm+BVG4ng3qKH3SQOZBwhT8QggQKI4UYAoUjGAECAQEBAQEBAWsohR4BBSNmCw4KJwMCAkYRBgEMBgIBARCKCRCpbIInJosXAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWDLYNYghWCf4RNg0uCYQWhSYdfjQyCFIlRhzKKIoNuh2CBOR84gVk0IQgdFYMthGE+NotFAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,389,1503360000"; d="scan'208,217";a="698063144"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Oct 2017 08:35:07 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9H8Z7cc000996; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:35:07 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <fd7e4552-4ad1-211a-264b-f493a22ff5a6@cisco.com> <BF141879-A1E4-439F-9AB2-52EC0B63155F@juniper.net>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <05f83ee0-4091-4941-e130-b42102521062@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:35:07 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BF141879-A1E4-439F-9AB2-52EC0B63155F@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B56BCD2D59ED479F5E0A8224"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/XWEGVYxLkCzJRBvBX2XVNmjncuI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:35:14 -0000

Hi Kent,
>
> Hi Benoit,
>
> BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability 
> metric that applies to BCPs.
>
    The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
    standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
>
> YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another 
> update to this document
>
> in the not too distant future.  Does that disqualify it in any way?
>
I don't think so. Implicitly, this says:

    The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
    standardize practices and the results of community_current _deliberations.


If the YANG use and knowledge spread, this document will evolve in the 
future.

The problem to be solved, which I faced: "RFC6087 is informational (as 
opposed to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it"

Regards, Benoit
>
> Kent
>
> On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" 
> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 
> bclaise@cisco.com <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm wondering if it's not time to classify 
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP, as opposed to informational
>
> This text would need to change:
>
>         This document is similar to the Structure of Management
>
>         Information
>
>         version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent
>
>         and structure.  However, since that document was written a decade
>
>         after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was published as a 'Best
>
>         Current Practice' (BCP).  This document is not a BCP, but rather an
>
>         informational reference, intended to promote consistency in documents
>
>         containing YANG modules.
>
> Indeed, it seems to me that the consistency in YANG modules is a 
> pretty important topic.
>
> Feedback?
>
> Regards, Benoit
>