Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

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"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> > > .
>> > > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>-- 
>Ladislav Lhotka
>Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod