Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

Kent:

A common way to express tree-diagrams in Yang documents provides a common
and clear to describe the models.  This would be really helpful to those
using these yang models.  Seems like a standard or a BCP to me.  

Sue Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
To: Lou Berger; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application
of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".

Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does not
represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be cause
for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG (NETMOD) and
therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus, but I'm willing
to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational RFCs are published
by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken literally.
Perhaps we should file Errata against it?

Kent // co-chair

===== original message =====

Hi Juergen,

    Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on all
the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite right for
this document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either.  I
do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This said, I think it
would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if
they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to 
> move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We 
> should leave as is."?
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Martin,
>> 	I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
>>
>> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is 
>> right before publication in any case.
>>
>> Lou (as contributor)
>>
>> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status 
>>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it 
>>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then 
>>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree 
>>> diagram document as an informative reference.
>>>
>>> Should we make this change?
>>>
>>>
>>> /martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_ma
>>> ilman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voD
>>> TXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA
>>> -4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsko
>>> noVDeyYcQE&e=
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai
>> lman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTX
>> cWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4y
>> jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVD
>> eyYcQE&e=

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod