Re: [yang-doctors] 6991bis

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> Thu, 22 March 2018 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F317124235 for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9VCbxvD91OXF for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9827B120721 for <>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2428; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521716648; x=1522926248; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=VJY87z8L6zE9oWLCQkfimpkIJQ8I3vv4vIXmVEN03Ko=; b=d5e1q/hEXH909CFlOES7OkTA3ZBoIj3S/7AUpCNa9S7t9dQqyCgVY64Y zjVZLcUraBOjB3WeLrUguwe/JzYWVROQFCg+4v8K/T/zkm3089WDsRCow QyIOKeHhlfPspqrc9+USoiKN6DZ3zJ3+rAslgAnKl5tcxXxq7526c/OMF o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A0AwAkjbNa/4gNJK1aAxkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEHAQEBAQGDPWFwKAqDUpULgXKBEJJXggYLH4RmAhqDRyE2FgECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAmsohSYBBSMRRQ4CAgEIDgIIAgImAgICGRcVEAIEDgWFDqsCgiCEWINpgXYFB?= =?us-ascii?q?YEDhCeCEYFTQIEMIoJkgUGDSQomgjowggQgA5d+CAKOcI0Cj2UCERMBgSQBIgE?= =?us-ascii?q?xgVJwFWQBghiCIQwMjhZvjzqBFgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,344,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="87212193"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2018 11:04:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2MB47Mu014209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:04:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:04:07 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:04:07 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] 6991bis
Thread-Index: AQHTwch1ckc/UCezC06wsm7u1hLnzaPcalYAgAAA5wA=
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:04:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20180322110052.7nz7q7tzrntkuetj@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20180322110052.7nz7q7tzrntkuetj@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.a.0.180210
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] 6991bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:04:10 -0000

Date is the only definition I am aware of, I was expecting/hoping the more experienced YDs would have more.


´╗┐On 2018-03-22, 11:01 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <> wrote:

    On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:28:02AM +0000, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > On Tuesday we discussed adding a typedef for date to avoid modules having to define their own. Is it worth doing a bis document just for this? Are there more common YANG types which need to be added?
    What we can do is to start a 6991bis I-D to collect new definitions
    but pushing such a bis I-D through the whole process just for adding
    'date' is likely too costly.
    The last time we updated the common typedefs, the comments received
    during IESG processing were mostly concerning definitions we did not
    add or change, and this might happen again. Some of that was useful
    since terminology is often becoming better defined but sometimes this
    also leads to interesting alignment and compability issues. While
    there are errata pointing to 'internal' (yang related) terminology
    issues, it may be necessary to also carefully check alignment with
    other terminology documents that are coming along, such as
    Anyway, which other definitions have we seen commonly used that could
    benefit from moving into 6991bis (and which are not covered by say
    routing types)?
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>