Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [yang-doctors] Routing YANG Design Team Scope

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 30/07/2015 11:31, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 06:06:49AM -0700, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>> 	Speaking as NETMOD co-chair:
>>
>> 	This is precisely why we are doing this effort and the others in the way that we are - across areas, with a wide enough group of people involved to hopefully cover the real requirements not just say server implementations, or client implementations - we want to cover those and operators who would using them.  So if one of the outputs of a DT is to conclude that the existing standard models are insufficient, then we will work to revise them.  The DTs should strive to recycle what is there as much as possible, but if in the end it is insufficient there is no other option.  So in summary: The DT should not believe that it is constrained to using only existing models as-is,
>>
> Tom,
>
> the value of standards is their stability and that we do not change
> them every other day. In other words, someone proposing to redo a
> standard must have very strong arguments that the current one is
> fundamentally flawed and unusable. And these arguments should in my
> view be brought to the place where the affected standards were
> created.
>
> If the routing area starts to work on the premise that published IETF
> standards will be redone based on some ideas originating from a DT but
> without agreement of the people who were involved in creating and
> implementing the standard, then I think we have a problem.
This is the reason why we organized a NETMOD interim meeting on the YANG 
model structure in June (and another one on the oper status btw).
Unfortunately, some key openconfig people were not in Prague to discuss 
further. Another NETMOD interim is the way to go. Currently in 
discussion with the NETMOD chairs.

Regards, Benoit
>
> /js
>