Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Nadeau Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 	[Speaking for myself]
> 
> 	Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to
> 	structure, or is it a resistance to churn/change?

The former.  IMO this is technically not a good proposal, as I have
tried to explain several times.

>       And if we solved the
> 	latter by say relaxing the rules around how we progress models to PS,
> 	would this alleviate the concerns for the former?  The meta question I
> 	will ask is: is the existing RFC process adequate/sufficient for us to
> 	move forward on such a large scale with Yang models at the IETF?
> 	Other organizations currently iterate on models using certain revision
> 	conventions (that are consistent with the rules we put out here) yet
> 	produce multiple versions of the same model within the same year.  As
> 	a matter of fact, multiple versions are allowed to coexist within a
> 	single implementation.  In stark contrast, the M.O. at the IETF has
> 	been to treat Yang models much like we did SNMP MIBs (or any other
> 	document here) thereby assuming that once it becomes an RFC, that it
> 	is largely set in concrete for many years to come.

In this specific case the change is cosmetic but has disastrous
effects on other standard modules, other vendor-specific modules,
existing server code and existing client code.  I think people expect
IETF standards to be a bit more stable than that.


/martin