Re: [Ntp] Antw: [EXT] Re: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-09

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Harlan,

> >> - I see no guidance in the document about how
> >>   implementation-specific elements should be handled.
> >
> > This comment is applicable to any YANG model published in IETF and it
> > is well covered by the YANG specification itself. See
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-4.2.8.
>
> As a likely implementor, I would appreciate a pointer in the document
> that directed me to this guidance.
>
> The IANA recommendation in section  9 simply describes the top-level
> "ntp" prefix, and then there are a number of normative reference
> documents in 12.1 and 2 informative references in 12.2
>
> What would you think about perhaps moving the content of section 7, the
> set of minimally-expected elements, to section 7.1, and adding 7.2 as
> short direction of what a vendor-specific sub-prefix (there's probably a
> better name for that) would look like and where that would be registered?
>

I personally feel that is outside of the scope of this document and
it's quite generic to be applicable to any YANG model published by the
IETF.

I checked RFC 8575 from our sister WG as well as a quick glance at all
the YANG models published by the IETF
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search?name=yang&sort=&rfcs=on&by=group&group=
and did not find such a discussion. Even the NTP MIB RFC 5907 does not
have any such text.

If you want we could use the guidance from the YANG Doctors or the AD.

> >> - I see it as a bug that there is no reference implementation.
> >>
> >
> > The shepherd report notes that vendor implementation is in the
> > planning stages. As usual, the IESG would take that into
> > consideration.
>
> Is the "vendor implementation" you describe the same as a reference
> implementation?
>

No. But as far as I am aware there is no such requirement.

Thanks!
Dhruv