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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 08 December 2017 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 7184F127005 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:11:46 -0800 (PST)
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 NRP1acHEuFwZ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 805BE126B6D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 08:11:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5111; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512749503; x=1513959103; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6YCPX/03VqIadVtRq+gW2kVyO+6abyb8PGETpJ42f1Q=; b=igJVcupjkljpZCq2WJyGSXLc7UJvedPu89BPcLpnugFKn5fkLaRFVTbv MsX7cv9LC7/2Xk7o0LoHgvKZc8huA40YSaK9Qtl4/y7NGOh2n/z8N4N90 TUpFwuFGnbrMQNFSv/YrRsGA1DlqjBYPn5DHtl+mEX+Ysx6NrL1cUY0Hs o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0COAADtuCpa/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQkdCeEAoohdJAJlwwUggEKGAuESU8ChR4YAQEBAQEBAQEBayi?= =?us-ascii?q?FIgEBAQEDAQEhFTYXBAsOAgEEAQEBAgIjAwICJx8JCAYBDAYCAQEQihQQp3aCJ?= =?us-ascii?q?4QWAYZMAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGAWBD4JMg2GCEoMCg0mBHjiDFYJ?= =?us-ascii?q?DIAWjCId5jSeMD4dSjQiBVYd/gTsfOYFPMhoIGxU6gimCUhyBLAE7QDeKNgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?Q?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,378,1508803200"; d="scan'208";a="774101"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Dec 2017 16:11:41 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vB8GBfDx027178; Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:11:41 GMT
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, "'Susan Hares'" <shares@ndzh.com>, "'Kent Watsen'" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>, netmod@ietf.org, "'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> <01e601d37010$750eacc0$5f2c0640$@gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <47fb5a83-4a9d-defc-e069-c699d004753f@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 17:11:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01e601d37010$750eacc0$5f2c0640$@gmail.com>
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/xUjGee0b5pPN_VIszttH9kFUnc8>
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 16:11:46 -0000

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
> .
>