IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sun, 24 March 2019 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D8712016B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CMjpH04xwnz1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22c.google.com (mail-lj1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0243F120183 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id f18so6134743lja.10 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jNVyl3kaXiuOSQFLU/yVQztY3Rqy7XKj219ICEdfPi0=; b=cDutdEAiEZhRfOadoQJAsRGJ2BarrP+JEHEP50bB0IBONeronJ4pG5aD8S1NHF6K7G Eg3qaxqbi+HUrTIIeiAk9k6axLQdvsnQ2ot/IX2PONUWgqIO1+I0BMSABzY2l/F5OUuN ffe6QCT12FJXPWsopJ3/GNMR1tgVbjnOS11NehzJLhK0AEjlR0bSYH4rNjI0zTxDftik OK2TAHaKKQx0yQRp1nI7T0T7o/gcFafUc/3Jo/OkJHf1J2f15wpuC9R5Z+znXvWIExO3 bSSz2EoBfQypKPBCuGO1MksL5JIUBo8EA9EGvJ0vUh+Io4R2EHm6RPhecaSeBPFbrnm5 k9Sw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jNVyl3kaXiuOSQFLU/yVQztY3Rqy7XKj219ICEdfPi0=; b=jn2gkaS+ybjOR3CIRWFr0wCeAPBMgAOd09WW/PScmoAbVlEf+xsYJza/u934SH/+br abcpuzatzJCavI/RCoMUp0SdamrgEedScyUvim3YEo+PLFfZuvfy2jvDTDgMycnQufiN aag6cgviACXBkCdlNKJNzQ7z3AmrlAB58k/0SXQpWhSUI+QuMeNS5M7GgRdwr0rdIvUu WgJtVXHUz6edTA5LeS99TIBSUt4QQFV1M+r5ywq4/C1/1kL/PyQIzNg3YSpaBevvt1VW HzaSEz4hi8TmVBEmrvyUWNhkgfnKnX5GAmrVjrqqg/NvLLhG4g7fDDOD3PSnBcQqTXKG cM9Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUX3yVMO6PrqZFTTOpWLfVq68/XEIcPlnywYuovdzAuqNOxctg4 tiO2un3TqwHKLcP3NLC0QXxfqNLcR/nRQQRL1Y5bEw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzmvdKGxnL083AR+BJnnqX6JimCbFkT8UZhc5r7SbXDus6Dv0gxQVhypwn0KTq7wYnON7J2PdY6phvAnr8HuF4=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b045:: with SMTP id d5mr11445494ljl.12.1553468051142; Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0100016978b80dcd-31f317a5-443b-400a-98b3-2bfc91841bdc-000000@email.amazonses.com> <491b2abc-90ee-90d0-6672-ffff796e14d9@labn.net> <E4480DFE-2051-4C7F-A092-5B31AA15DA80@bogus.com> <CABCOCHSdakF3vACfwPMi4sq60+ndDxTrOyeqTjRpTYSQrUdzoA@mail.gmail.com> <01000169b1732722-f41ea67f-9c6e-4ec4-a6f2-90e340b4d7a4-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHTcr-UYZew-3yX+xx7NOzk6V2S1YUwm7K7AhvO2_fcD5Q@mail.gmail.com> <516900C0-88C2-4D91-991A-F7E9F8B824D6@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <516900C0-88C2-4D91-991A-F7E9F8B824D6@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 15:54:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQ7f9xGOHLpTYW9qZ_XP=TkSBLBw90L4jR3Wv1X-rL91g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005bcddb0584def773"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/iTD4q9_Uu8U_4gf9uoLFGzXEEUE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:54:16 -0000

Hi,

I don't know what it means to "accept" NBC changes.
I agree this is a deviation that could be documented somehow.

Andy


On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 2:47 PM Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> *From: *netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 'Andy Bierman' <
> andy@yumaworks.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 9:59 PM
> *To: *Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
> *Cc: *NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [netmod] adoption poll for yang-versioning-reqs-02
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 1:45 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I do not support adoption of the requirements document at all.
>
> Can you say why?   Is it a blanket statement about adopting requirements
> drafts in general, or something specific to this draft.
>
>
>
> Because they just waste time.
>
> They are mostly reverse engineered from the desired solution (by the
> authors).
>
>
>
> <RR> I don’t think we’re tied to the solution of semver or modified semver
> (speaking for myself at least). The main question on the requirements is
> whether NBC changes should be accepted. Many people seem to think so, if
> you don’t agree that’s fine, but I disagree with the claim that the
> requirements are reverse engineered from the solution, I believe the design
> team has strived to separate the 2.
>
>
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> We end up having the same debates twice.
>
>
>
> It is usually worse then that, since you end up debating the wording in
> the requirements
>
> instead of the merits of the solution-in-progress (considering all factors
> and readjusted requirements).
>
>
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email