Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data

[Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

OK, If the chairs are happy with that, I can update the document before 
I store it as an official netmod document.

regards Balazs

On 2018. 10. 09. 14:25, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hello Martin,
>>
>> I agree that this document shall be about defining the file format,
>> and server capabilities shall only be a use-case.)
>>
>> I already took out a lot of text, that explicitly recommended using
>> instance data for documenting capabilities. Server capabilities are
>> only mentioned in the introduction chapter.
>> As you wrote: There is no _normative_  specification of how a server
>> would document its capabilities, because this is
>> what the WG requested, so I removed it.
> Hmm.  Ok, if this is what the WG wants, then it is fine to just have
> server capabilities as an example use case.  (I thought that the WG
> wanted a normative description of server capabilities...)
>
>> I see that I forgot to change the title and the introduction can be
>> reworded to make
>> it more clear that documenting server capabilities is just a use-case.
>> (I still see it as the primary use-case for instance data.)
> I think all text in 2 Introduction (except the last para) in this case
> should be moved to section 2.1, and new text should be written in 2.
>
> (*if* there will be a separate doc for server capabilities, the text
> in 2 should be moved to that doc instead.)
>
>>   If I promise to change the title and clarify the introduction can you
>> support adoption?
> First of all I'd like to ensure that the WG in fact just wants to do
> the file format.  Since people have expressed support for adopting the
> draft with the current title, I'm not so sure that this is the case.
>
> I think you should make those changes, and I support the adoption of
> the modified document.  I don't see any reason not to make these
> chanegs before posting as a WG doc.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
>> regards Balazs
>>
>> On 2018. 10. 09. 12:58, 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> -- 
>> Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
>> Senior Specialist
>> Mobile: [phone] email: [e-mail]
>>
>>
-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: [phone]              email: [e-mail]