Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

On 17/03/2017 14:32, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an Informational RFC that defined the YANG datastores?
> My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular set of datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed.
OK, if 70590bis was entirely datastore agnostic, then there would need 
to be a description of how YANG applies to a particular set of 
datastores (in particular the config: true|false statement), and which 
datastores are validated.  Would that go in the revised datastores 
architecture or somewhere else?  It wouldn't make sense to have to 
repeat this for every network configuration protocol.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> Lada
>
>> If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is actually required to support the revised datastores draft) then does that mean we would also need to have a new version of YANG?
>>
>> That would potentially seem like a backwards step.  Also what would it mean for an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is using a mix of YANG modules with different versions?
>>
>> I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be standards track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting that they are really only in the one draft at this stage because it seemed like that would make it easier for folks to review and comment on.
>>
>> Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>> I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis.
>>>
>>> Mehmet
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM
>>>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>;
>>>> Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>>
>>>> Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the input.  I think your point highlights how the technical
>>>> contents of a document drives the intended status of a document.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>> PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not* typically
>>>> included in charters and are not included in the distributed version.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think the DS
>>>>>> concept document is Informational in nature and should be published as
>>>> an
>>>>>> Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in
>>> diverse
>>>>>> protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an overlapping
>>>>>> between NETCONF and NETMOD charters.
>>>>> The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity definitions
>>>>> for datastores and origins and these definitions better be standards
>>>>> track.
>>>>>
>>>>> /js
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>>> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>>> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> .
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
>
>
>
>
> .
>