Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> writes:
>
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> *both* document authors?
Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
group's document.

The consensus call was made back here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
proceed with an update in a timely fashion.

IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>> that normatively reference the current draft.
>>
>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> than hand-waving.
>
> I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>
> Lada
>
>> we also agree
>> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>> supporting rfc7895bis.
>>
>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and advancement. 
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod