Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi,

I support BCP status.
This is consistent with RFC 4181, which RFC 6087 was modeled after.

Andy

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

> Hi Benoit, et al.,
>
>
>
> As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I
> know that Lou does as well (I just asked him).  As co-chair, reading
> Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026, I feel that we need to formally run the decision
> past the WG.  So, without further ado:
>
>
>
> This is the start of 1-week poll to gauge WG consensus on the proposal to
> promote rfc6087bis to BCP.  We'd like to hear "yes/support" or "no/don't
> support", with an explanation for why.  Please respond by Oct 24.
>   (better, hit the reply-all button now!)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kent (and Lou)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/17/17, 4:35 AM, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Kent,
>
> Hi Benoit,
>
>
>
> BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability metric
> that applies to BCPs.
>
>    The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
>
>    standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2026-23section-2D5&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=dL2SzevPrC4Ak-LYJY77M0cArIHFsM3svOz2X06jytY&s=O_GnXGQDkkAG4hGnmdn6udA0s5orNxjkKYYWDoO-MnM&e=>
>
> YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another update
> to this document
>
> in the not too distant future.  Does that disqualify it in any way?
>
> I don't think so. Implicitly, this says:
>
>    The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
>
>    standardize practices and the results of community *current *deliberations.
>
>
> If the YANG use and knowledge spread, this document will evolve in the
> future.
>
> The problem to be solved, which I faced: "RFC6087 is informational (as
> opposed to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it"
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" <
> netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm wondering if it's not time to classify draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as
> a BCP, as opposed to informational
>
> This text would need to change:
>
>    This document is similar to the Structure of Management
>
>    Information
>
>    version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent
>
>    and structure.  However, since that document was written a decade
>
>    after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was published as a 'Best
>
>    Current Practice' (BCP).  This document is not a BCP, but rather an
>
>    informational reference, intended to promote consistency in documents
>
>    containing YANG modules.
>
>
>
> Indeed, it seems to me that the consistency in YANG modules is a pretty
> important topic.
>
> Feedback?
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>