Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter

I understanbd there are lots of tools available for these
machine-friendly DMLs. (wink!)

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ngo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ngo-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:36 AM
> To: Andy Bierman
> Cc: NETCONF Goes On
> Subject: Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 5:32 PM
> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> > Cc: Randy Presuhn; NETCONF Goes On
> > Subject: Re: [NGO] NETMOD charter
> > 
> > Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > >  
> > >.....
> > > 
> > > If you refer to what happens after all this is defined, I 
> > do not think 
> > > that each DM document needs to be written (and reviewed) in 
> > the three 
> > > formats. The mandatory format is the one expressed in the 
> > > operator-friendly DML, other are optional and MAY be 
> > defined from case 
> > > to case.
> > > 
> > 
> > It has not been my experience that the IESG will give you a 
> > free pass because the text on certain pages is 'optional'.  
> > I'm pretty sure if you include RNG and/or DSDL documents in a 
> > standards-track document, that text will need to be reviewed, 
> > even though it is in non-normative sections.
> 
> Yes - I agree. Many people think however that these formats 
> are useful,
> so I guess they will provide their support for writing and reviewing
> such pieces of code when they show up in the documents. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> NGO@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo
> 

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo