Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> Fri, 08 December 2017 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mersue@gmail.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 4FEF3126CB6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 02:36:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 20vqKblqQewv for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 02:36:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (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 970D6120724 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 02:36:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id o2so10371059wro.5 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:36:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language; bh=1A7tl/3I86M+fyPKUI83mYWGul/qUSDi7MGUbzO+1NI=; b=ERcDLjne5ZzoCdKuKdhlpKZYxj6QJ+740H7bjCTfLx+I/aYmPaaWN9Z656JdOlSR0l gMTidoScQZ5quA6hugQRKkaNQQREwhWS0IvnbP+w77QdcYRGhdtaKCDn31wPIk7lWegi spxLY+UhGeGu5GFXMlMN7m9mfZlZvbo9uoQJnRAnAHbboX45ww2xDiNSQ/df8WnAfBgr KSOyENSC9cY98cWCqhAgT/D1TjzNRTPFTweBlb6j1RWSSYpnG1pXuQhUUXULEr9g4IAA M5Q681SYNkiQOydEOn97kiCrfd0xk16N8DIz5SmS17zlktEJWN2KqyggHpP90w1udLXw 4Osw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=1A7tl/3I86M+fyPKUI83mYWGul/qUSDi7MGUbzO+1NI=; b=h7Fmuaidg5DRHysNY32VDH6dU7i6PT+4fBh7uhgo6eS/6IRTR7mhbOUx7/1VL/CeLn Sm2v15aawvvEAo/51MjtosLfh+YM1yL4mLLERZDLSV9GDGvB8QSMm2A+X+sA7ojSBTF3 Lar5IrnF5Xqsmc6k/OiN3aPPXwdvm4Qgb/koIObRLK2MikMGa9JLPaiGQIjr9t6zs4C6 kn+CrEx/D5eu//L2cxinhBryuLnd6rEwWla4/xSOdxgho/IIGQ5CZqoWn2LiFM1tL8O+ vvZgIxsVTwq4lKaE/USK1n/Ga5x9DEGLovAJP1fpOkPWG3jByQXK3ijG+OJEui/Mp+DD s2Lg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4rJiC6pyBMgOUfgdEhZpIp06NMsmMBsWwxrWMbFmvADn7vZRbn zeLUrbucH34kBI0z6fyahXw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMazs8KSsicwNj5vIeb2WNITGBKlVcNjvZUud3xYcJXmGuA8iYK4sz5AKNPr25OWnGEVuTRVww==
X-Received: by 10.223.148.69 with SMTP id 63mr27867861wrq.89.1512729410094; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:36:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ ([2001:16b8:2d7e:3500:e46b:add3:60ca:3d60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b78sm1288725wmi.18.2017.12.08.02.36.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:36:48 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
To: "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Kent Watsen'" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>, <netmod@ietf.org>, "'Benoit Claise'" <bclaise@cisco.com>, "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
References: <20171115.135818.591114714397486064.mbj@tail-f.com> <69960a0c-1441-ec80-d8fb-287d8c474300@labn.net> <20171117065424.ccnx3dufs7e5abk3@elstar.local> <1e71a94a-d07a-0c0b-bc02-56aefdf19329@labn.net> <296B481E-20A5-4362-AE5C-174481FEDFA4@juniper.net> <002f01d36fc0$dd272350$977569f0$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <002f01d36fc0$dd272350$977569f0$@ndzh.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:36:49 +0100
Message-ID: <01e601d37010$750eacc0$5f2c0640$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIYiVulqF0NfmhUSOkO8xFRxfIw1gKEwmFWAVT6F7IBb2tBmwEVRqXTAiopNK+iasfYIA==
Content-Language: de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nOTyikI5HszDI6gQ_JD8bVQCq5s>
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
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: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 10:36:54 -0000

I think the rules and recommendations in this document should be used, once
agreed and published, by all YANG module drafts within and outside of IETF.
As such its content is BCP.
IETF consensus will be achieved during IETF LC.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 2:07 AM
> To: 'Kent Watsen' <kwatsen@juniper.net>; 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>;
> netmod@ietf.org; 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>; 'Juergen
> Schoenwaelder' <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
> 
> Kent:
> 
> A common way to express tree-diagrams in Yang documents provides a
> common and clear to describe the models.  This would be really helpful to
> those using these yang models.  Seems like a standard or a BCP to me.
> 
> Sue Hares
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
> To: Lou Berger; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise; Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
> 
> 
> BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application
> of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
> "practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".
> 
> Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does
not
> represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be
> cause for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG
> (NETMOD) and therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus,
> but I'm willing to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational
RFCs are
> published by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken
literally.
> Perhaps we should file Errata against it?
> 
> Kent // co-chair
> 
> 
> ===== original message =====
> 
> Hi Juergen,
> 
>     Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.
> 
> Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on all
the
> factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite right for
this
> document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either.  I do
think
> BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This said, I think it would be
good to
> hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if they
agree/disagree
> with publishing as a BCP.
> 
> Kent, Benoit?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Lou,
> >
> > right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
> > move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
> > should leave as is."?
> >
> > /js
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Martin,
> >> 	I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
> >>
> >> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is
> >> right before publication in any case.
> >>
> >> Lou (as contributor)
> >>
> >> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> >>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> >>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> >>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree
> >>> diagram document as an informative reference.
> >>>
> >>> Should we make this change?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /martin
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> netmod mailing list
> >>> netmod@ietf.org
> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_ma
> >>>
> ilman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voD
> >>>
> TXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpv
> oumTA
> >>> -
> 4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byE
> sko
> >>> noVDeyYcQE&e=
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> netmod@ietf.org
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mai
> >> lman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTX
> >>
> cWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvou
> mTA-4y
> >>
> jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsk
> onoVD
> >> eyYcQE&e=
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod