Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 14/09/2017 15:52, Kent Watsen wrote:
> rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module, but does it actually say it?  (I can't find it)
>
> The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to have a meaningful impact in the wild.  I think Juergen said they had this issue with MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they republish the legacy MIBs with deprecated status.
So rfc8022bis-02 publishes the v2 module, and the the deprecated version 
of the v1 module as an appendix?

>
> I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's general agreement to do it.  Are the authors okay with it, or are there any better suggestions?
>
> PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a substatement [I just added this omission to the yang-next tracker].  I think the only way to "deprecate a module" is to instead deprecate the all the nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module.  Kind of ugly, but it's for a deprecated module, so who care, right?  ;)
I see "kind of ugly" as a feature in the this case, someone looking at 
the updated v1 module isn't going to be able to miss that whatever they 
are looking at is deprecated. ;-)

Rob


>
> Kent
>
>
> --
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> Hi Kent & Lou,
>>
>> When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process
>> on these drafts?
>>
>> I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for
>> adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open question
>> of what to do with the old state tree, but presumably that could be
>> solved after the draft has been adopted?
> I see an update for the third was published yesterday
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02)  that
> clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably
> obsolete 8022.  And now that this intended direction is clear in the
> draft we could poll it.
>
> I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the
> rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than
> just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes
> marked as deprecated.  I think you're right that this could be done post
> adoption.  Of course others are free to disagree.
>
> I check with Kent and see what he thinks.
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing RFCs to align them with NMDA.  The first batch have been published as individual drafts:
>>>
>>> 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
>>> 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
>>> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00
>>>
>>> Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the related adoption calls.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kent (and Lou)
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> .
>>>
>
>