IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 05 October 2017 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF94A13454B; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBnn7gs4dqeF; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94F4313309D; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 06:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v95DuEpb012489; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:56:15 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (218.122.115.87.dyn.plus.net [87.115.122.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v95DuDVa012475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Oct 2017 14:56:14 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'YANG Doctors' <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis.all@ietf.org
References: <262fdd36-5213-f716-016a-02442c427a0a@labn.net> <013c01d33ddf$1e2ad040$5a8070c0$@olddog.co.uk> <e7149805-4ea4-ee18-1295-d4b46c624a3c@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <e7149805-4ea4-ee18-1295-d4b46c624a3c@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 14:56:09 +0100
Message-ID: <014901d33de1$b3728880$1a579980$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQE84666VDowpbHmUS/Up6dKWyTSTAI3MtnAAe8NHQej4Mjt0A==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.1.0.1062-23372.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.935-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.935-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oTBA/+sdKaY4HKI/yaqRm+YAh37ZsBDC9Pf8r56P8Ogv4fVTr0+gIPJs l+USu3BF7OTFpba0MQG3P2Qi5OQGrjvsSwE6Lz76CPKPqEbU3ZMpWss5kPUFdLYXhr68jbY+/vw 4Wm3bj6USeVY+QJ3D2qzCYCJ+fOo8ZmbAKoGe4B+gx+na8dyT1f0ZphLMH+yH3Hl0OqtoIEo7+G KLTFLij/PCzvhrSxHElfT218ySdXiR9GF2J2xqM4MbH85DUZXy9bZp7+X22G5fJNMqXrQQUOTCM ddcL/gjOwBXM346/+y5OYow6XRKM57CAe5DsOoLmLHrNE0CiSiocKwZ9RIXg4iZJRVj6sld
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/AnYZUcHkQVWItbMDocqf4fLJCiI>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Review of draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis?
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 13:56:19 -0000

> Thanks for the background.  We have a somewhat similar situation going
> on right now with rfc 8022 (been out a short time, no shipping
> implementations, *but* update motivated by need to be updated to NMDA
> compatible form).  In that case, we're headed down a path of deprecating
> the old modules and issuing a replacement '-2' version.  Would it make
> sense to do a similar thing here and just rename the module (to
> ietf-l3vpn-svc-2) and thereby conform with YANGs compatibility requirement?

I have no strong opinion either way.

Given that 8049 can't be implemented, I'm not sure that the module it specifies actually exists at all.

I'm really happy to be guided by anyone who does have a strong opinion.

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email