Re: [netmod] regarding draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext-00

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

[Re: moving the definition of rc:yang-data to a new document]

> >
> > > We went through that issue at least twice before RFC 8040.
> >
> > > There was no concern about this extension being in the RESTCONF spec.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't think people understood what was at stake at the time - yang-data
> > has since taken on more prominence.    You write "no concern", but I think
> > it was more like "no response", and the solution just rolled on.
> >
> 
> I think I explained it well enough at the time.
> There is a normative reference to RESTCONF to use yang-data.
> This is just an RFC detail. In a server, the yang-library can indicate
> that ietf-restconf is just imported (not implemented). It really does not
> matter
> that this extension is in ietf-restconf.yang.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > We really have to try to keep the documents stable, and not republish an
> > RFC
> >
> > > just to move definitions around.
> >
> >
> >
> > We are talking about a new RFC (this draft).  I don't care if 8040 ever
> > uses the new yang-data statement, it can forever have its own private
> > definition.  I do care that we introduce a long-term solution (again,
> > augment alone seems limited) and would like to make an incremental
> > improvement for normative references.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> IMO it is not worth the trouble.

If it wasn't for the new 'augment-yang-data' statement, I'd agree.

But if we're doing a new standalone document for 'augment-yang-data',
I think we should also define 'yang-data' in that document.  The cost
is minimal, and we get one self-contained document with all things
related to 'yang-data'.


/martin