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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Umm, bcp covers process and consensus agreement while informational 
typically does not*.  I also don't see how 6087bis would be a more suited 
to be a bcp than this document.

Lou


On December 7, 2017 7:06:35 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE&e=
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU&s=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE&e=
>
>
>