Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kent Watsen <> Wed, 22 April 2020 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4023A3A0F46; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KMI47f_mvXZw; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10BFE3A0F45; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono;; t=1587570872; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=rWot6NmcSSJyFIkK3kKUJtsH3nXyk3m6AhO/GwzsGWM=; b=TmcLgr+wlk9qGIvrZdmlCKlZdwLv+qvQ7FJCmVNtanyf+3pxCoVEDCTl9wohcrZs rpcvipcP6vjp1Q70piUSLPAsSaX5H98+EWvuWA+ZbvJRwf4F4zsU/4UgtP1j4386wW7 VdR43fz3RNyK8Yr6/83gilRySiHnXth2un1TY0sA=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0C00133B-C4A8-4492-ADC3-BF460314B121"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:54:32 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Qin Wu <>, Roman Danyliw <>, "" <>, The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.04.22-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:54:37 -0000

[Roman: for this draft, the takeaway is that Qin’s section deviates from the template because the module doesn’t define all the parts typically found in a YANG module]

Hi Rob,

> [RW]
> Perhaps add such as section in [], and mark it to be removed before publication.
> E.g. [RFC Editor: Please remove this comment before publication. For reviewers:  This section has been modified from the standard template because …]

Yes, this idea was coming to me as I was writing the above, but I thought it useful still to agree that the RFCs should never be published with a reference to the template, whether or not the Security Considerations section conforms to it or not.

> I’m obviously not saying that we need to do this for this document, just as a suggestion for future documents.


> Regards,
> Rob

Kent  // as chair and shepherd