Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 09:35 -0500, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:
> > 
> > > Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on
> > > Nov 6th.
> > > 
> > > Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> > > address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> > > been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> > > NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> > > These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> > > consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> > > advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> > 
> > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> > *both* document authors?
> 
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 
> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

Ongoing threads are mentioned here, and they have to be resolved.

> 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.

What would be fatally flawed are two different versions of schema mount.

> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.
> 
> IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
> discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
> depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
> judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

An author objecting against his own document in the IETF LC - this sounds pretty
crazy. If possible, I'd prefer to find consensus within the WG.

Lada

> 
> > > Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> > > proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> > > to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> > > operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> > > statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> > > that normatively reference the current draft.
> > > 
> > > In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> > 
> > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> > than hand-waving.
> > 
> > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > we also agree
> > > with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> > > allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> > > thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> > > supporting rfc7895bis.
> > > 
> > > The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this
> > > message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission
> > > and advancement. 
> > > 
> > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kent, Lou, and Joel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67