Re: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions

On 10/21/2016 5:12 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> All,
>      Some may have noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the
> close of LC and the submission of the publication request for this
> document.  While it was gated by a minor update, the more significant
> reason for the delay was the consideration of how to proceed with models
> that contain the -state branch.
>
> As we're sure most are aware we have a design team looking at how
> datastores might be used to address the applied vs intended config [1]
> and the larger "OpState" discussion.  There also has been some
> discussion on proposals on how to proceed while their work is ongoing,
> including a proposal that I promoted - and this model presents the first
> opportunity to implement such.
>
> Based on a fair bit of discussion among the authors, chairs, AD and
> design team, we concluded that introducing a new model convention
> at this time really doesn't provide any substantive benefit and may in
> fact complicate future transition/upgrade approaches. This
> consideration is what resulted in the delay.
>
> The impact of this discussion on routing-cfg is no change.  The impact
> on -state conventions is that, for now, we (as chairs) feel that models
> being submitted for publication request by the WG should follow the
> conventions found in RFC7223
This is an important message.
This is indeed the way to publish YANG modules these days at the IETF.

Regards, Alia (RTG AD) and Benoit (OPS AD)
> and the recommendations documented in
> 6087bis section 5.23 [2].
> discussion in the WG, e.g., based on the output of the DT.
>
> Lou and Kent
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16491.html
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-08#section-5.23
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> .
>