Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 2017 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 6B3381331C2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ftGvrryfqAqW for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5C513243A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6220; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1505487167; x=1506696767; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BU63Wq70yBAOPtICjbbEXFQ0XanEGIH7Ybur0uY/oAw=; b=bllhuF4lqhPMU3/HErOr62B1qoVSYiatg7snfHNIBUXxpO2I8QCEf12K kcCwM9Xov/sGVsGZOMmE9i70OZvC2eYFALVwOD99g0p1xELbFLA5oCfmU BEm40mdJzF9aQhQr4WbEZcSjtdZ3GKbr1GOBRhoY4fEFRF4bPilCLE9n+ E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CrAAAD6btZ/4oNJK1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBg1pkbicHg26KII9zgXSWJ4ISChgLhEpPAhqEED8YAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BayiFGQEBAQMBASEROhsCAQYCGAICJgICAiULFRACBAESijMQjh2dZoInizEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYEOgh2CAoMzgyiEYi2CfIJgBaEEAodZjHq?= =?us-ascii?q?CE4VqinuJf4sGAhEZAYE4AR84gQ13FUmFGRyBZ3aIAoEPAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,397,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="298851638"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 15 Sep 2017 14:52:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8FEqkPF006494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:52:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:52:45 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Fri, 15 Sep 2017 10:52:45 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
Thread-Index: AQHTISEQvmg9jr+3gUCv+5ltP9XhHqK0vhUAgAADXwCAABGHAIABS1qAgAAC5wA=
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:52:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D5E15F4A.C80F5%acee@cisco.com>
References: <14299503-509D-43BE-A938-0B7B88C3B249@juniper.net> <36ba3d4b-1ae1-0666-12cf-db41e172924b@cisco.com> <75739d75-da96-b340-2403-d0949ac54ed7@labn.net> <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net> <1505471909.18681.7.camel@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1505471909.18681.7.camel@nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.117.47]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <72EF2FB874DBFD418A12CC827CED427B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zqc8xfA9CPJlq249I2D64k5kcAk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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, 15 Sep 2017 14:52:49 -0000

Hi, 

With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the
RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the
deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way
to achieve this. 

I agree with Lada that deprecating all the schema nodes is unnecessary.
However, we’ll do what it takes to reach consensus and satisfy the most
pedantic among us. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 9/15/17, 6:38 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
<netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>Kent Watsen píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 14:52 +0000:
>> rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy
>> module, but does it actually say it?  (I can't find it)
>
>The modules contained therein have different names and namespaces, so
>there is
>no formal ancestry. I would prefer to keep the modules from RFC 8022 as
>they are
>- some weirdos may still want to use them.
>
>> 
>> The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's
>>going to
>> have a meaningful impact in the wild.  I think Juergen said they had
>>this
>> issue with MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they
>>republish the
>> legacy MIBs with deprecated status.
>> 
>> I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's
>> general agreement to do it.  Are the authors okay with it, or are there
>>any
>> better suggestions?
>> 
>> PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a
>>substatement [I
>> just added this omission to the yang-next tracker].  I think the only
>>way to
>> "deprecate a module" is to instead deprecate the all the
>> nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module.  Kind of ugly, but it's for a
>> deprecated module, so who care, right?  ;)
>
>I think it is unnecessary. If somebody needs adding such a module to the
>data
>model, he/she should probably have a reason to do so, such as data
>implemented
>on the server.
>
>Lada  
>
>> 
>> Kent
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>> > Hi Kent & Lou,
>> > 
>> > When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption
>>process 
>> > on these drafts?
>> > 
>> > I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for
>> > adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open
>>question 
>> > of what to do with the old state tree, but presumably that could be
>> > solved after the draft has been adopted?
>> 
>> I see an update for the third was published yesterday
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02)  that
>> clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably
>> obsolete 8022.  And now that this intended direction is clear in the
>> draft we could poll it.
>> 
>> I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the
>> rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than
>> just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes
>> marked as deprecated.  I think you're right that this could be done post
>> adoption.  Of course others are free to disagree.
>> 
>> I check with Kent and see what he thinks.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>> 
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > Rob
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> > > Hey folks,
>> > > 
>> > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising
>>existing RFCs
>> > > to align them with NMDA.  The first batch have been published as
>> > > individual drafts:
>> > > 
>> > > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
>> > > 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
>> > > 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00
>> > > 
>> > > Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the
>>related
>> > > adoption calls.
>> > > 
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Kent (and Lou)
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>netmod@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod