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

"Susan Hares" <> Fri, 08 December 2017 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651DF128B38 for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:07:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gk19kPaD3MxN for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:07:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99191127698 for <>; Thu, 7 Dec 2017 17:07:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Kent Watsen' <>, 'Lou Berger' <>,, 'Benoit Claise' <>, 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' <>
References: <> <> <20171117065424.ccnx3dufs7e5abk3@elstar.local> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:07:04 -0500
Message-ID: <002f01d36fc0$dd272350$977569f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIYiVulqF0NfmhUSOkO8xFRxfIw1gKEwmFWAVT6F7IBb2tBmwEVRqXTont67JA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:07:13 -0000


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 [] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
To: Lou Berger;; 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?



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
>>> ilman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voD
>>> TXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA
>>> -4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsko
>>> noVDeyYcQE&e=
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> lman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTX
>> cWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4y
>> jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVD
>> eyYcQE&e=

netmod mailing list