Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 14 September 2017 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.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 D8BB0132D43 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Iw15-USJ7kZW for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5744913291C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3237; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505401363; x=1506610963; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rBQjYfRN5P15rhtiaSSWnI3j47nG19YwmXHPHZ2iJyU=; b=YEpscymMPelSf15lpzJSd7pUA3gb+zn+K08K8LqojgTs8lsiL2UGTrEP JVPEupLdtuApO51ZVqxzcEnBrDdBbuCwvFzbXsZTbjajpeMbEwILygj7Q vWcobNLwdzwlQ8qsAt9l43ogGst7QTg5Bis0OIa895vBHPQiCeucoia0B s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CPAQCJmLpZ/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBhD5uJ4N3ixSQRgkiliiCEgoYC4RKTwKEZRYBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQEBAQIBAQEhFTYbCw4KAgImAgInMAYBDAYCAQGKJggQrAeCJ4syAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBDoIdg1KBYysLgnKIC4JgBaECh1qMeIIThWiDWoc?= =?us-ascii?q?hiX+DXYdVgTkmByqBDTIhCBwVSoUZHIFoPzaIbQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,393,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="655643006"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Sep 2017 15:02:39 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.66] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-66.cisco.com [10.63.23.66]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8EF2cJp000804; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:02:38 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <14299503-509D-43BE-A938-0B7B88C3B249@juniper.net> <36ba3d4b-1ae1-0666-12cf-db41e172924b@cisco.com> <75739d75-da96-b340-2403-d0949ac54ed7@labn.net> <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <2891bd09-0e0d-415c-2714-15141a293e42@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:02:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nw8T2049fwZP1MKer5PhVar2f7A>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:02:50 -0000


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
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> .
>>>
>
>