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

Dear all,

I believe BCP is correct for the tree diagram document.
Exactly as this is the right status for RFC6087bis, as discussed on the 
list.

Regards, Benoit.
> 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
> .
>