Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 17 October 2017 18:33 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 43BA5133020 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, SPF_PASS=-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 fi8oCmI52TZt for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 387A71323F7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id w21so3084011lfc.6 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=F1TcWQjopxwyqpzIMvbmidEgPWlYxVbRML+IOMpXR+k=; b=yhOpke3vGUDeUykIi+nbdNPTghR0CPBMfLdbGK3jY1sGWb7CJ8A9mbG2G1QI4XYQ6A yo0m/yF5zJEoFZmEvkWs0zoS0/ZDGzTeLUrZjqWWACO84pKBhEahGIdj9Zr/rdpvo+2t 6tnmqvXTyJ5g47pjeUK2Pcp8hHsyOB1AbbMrICICaB4lsn53jDLgM/yVWmOgogwUvb4e 1+S+2HWwMrR2NE7QiDjUzlm1DDv8Np7iCK/K/sFGUZh03YEHdg/xSSGTcRvT13xIEmUe 86PsNm0jAt6NsxHoxgvuBUBqhX4y6d6iHRcybCaw3v2Ta1mKcNFkdzTcu4arDvH2yEXY 2CWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=F1TcWQjopxwyqpzIMvbmidEgPWlYxVbRML+IOMpXR+k=; b=Y5n/r5WXijDwPgRVZjxHPjD5uiFvbsOTZsJYdyQa1jdiSH2LiisKFEFpEyOCNlIOh3 eZWYh0vCTEElVFnZgIfdy30y1jwlSPYANLC1mwq4JGhhxhoJXiIqelgqC5Mpn6Vx/aqP 4VXBpUgxhk6SnLCIgGRhjcjV0XhQsojMyN0OqmJhd9n6sbqmKBwIuBs+fK4RoDm8KTYj fArqypJbpWJxUPp04W+KyNPOretZH2YVIrPgSXnftIBrgjoMNE1KZcFdSKYTlKJj2eaF Hav1bwZKObTzejmGOt+1qmkivss5EzplOdRXPQ4DOBGYDecgG3OTuw/lHzbWJvI85RpH 3R1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXAgB98YjDI3Iak6wtWBK2E8ofqBXHSkxwE67jGKsTzKYhNjoc+ iT1rWsr9oQrIYDXc8IQtaL7VnygVokP126PzlPtxTw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Ruqkrro3eHmFYZgO2LPYb1O/pSgAAaV9rC9cXdhazw/niVCONQ/V7GrQ4i6+gBMgBDiolhdvXmDAhfCUWuFP0=
X-Received: by 10.25.23.165 with SMTP id 37mr4539989lfx.202.1508265205451; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.150.198 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <A1EF591A-4459-44B1-82DB-C5C0000AC4C8@juniper.net>
References: <fd7e4552-4ad1-211a-264b-f493a22ff5a6@cisco.com> <BF141879-A1E4-439F-9AB2-52EC0B63155F@juniper.net> <05f83ee0-4091-4941-e130-b42102521062@cisco.com> <A1EF591A-4459-44B1-82DB-C5C0000AC4C8@juniper.net>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:33:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRfU9VSzjGSVoRhEAE-q+9xKRAY93x6eE=by27MnxOaBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11401a04cc68c0055bc25b0b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jpvWoLU95HzRF1kmAnzoWczI7Nk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:33:30 -0000
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 > >
- [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP? Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BC… Andy Bierman