Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll

On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 12:19 +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> +1 to Martin's comments.  I think that I made similar comments at the 
> mic at IETF 102.

Me too, it is also recoreded in the minutes. I thought this could be addressed
after this draft becomes a WG item.

Lada

> 
> I strongly support the idea of documenting YANG instance data. If the WG 
> timing works out I would like this to cover CBOR as well.
> 
> I also strongly support the idea of documenting server capabilities.  
> But I'm opposed to conflating these two separate concerns in the same draft.
> 
> I also think that that there should be a optional mechanism to embed the 
> list of module revisions (and perhaps features) that are required to 
> correctly decode the instance data.
> 
> E.g., the example in section 3 contains YANG library data, but I don't 
> know which version or YANG library I need to read in the instance data.  
> It might have been constructed assuming the format from RFC 7895, or it 
> might have been constructed using the format from YANG library bis, 
> which could easily fail if my tool attempts to interpret the instance 
> data against the schema in RFC 7895.  So I think that this information 
> is critical for tools to be able to interpret the instance data in a 
> reliable fashion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On 09/10/2018 11:58, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I still think that this draft should either be split into two, one for
> > specifiying the generic file format (ok with examples), and one for
> > "Documenting Server Capabilities", or the document should just be
> > about the file format (+ *examples*).
> > 
> > [The current document mixes the two; it's a bit as if we had "The
> > YANG language and a model for interfaces" as one doc...]
> > 
> > It is clear that the document specifies a file format for YANG
> > instance data, which is good.  But it is not clear if the document
> > intends to specify how a server should document its capabilities.
> > 
> > The Introduction mainly talks about why it is important to document
> > server capabilities.  But then AFAICT there is no normative
> > specification of how a server would document its capabilities.
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > 
> > Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
> > > All,
> > > 
> > > This is start of a two week poll on making
> > > draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-04 a working group
> > > document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or
> > > "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations
> > > with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments
> > > you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> > > 
> > > The poll ends Oct 22.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Lou (and co-chairs)
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > .
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67