Answer: No. > The pattern in NETMOD and OPSAWG in publishing documents with YANG modules
All the current practices around YANG center on YANG models describing management information bases on servers (data at rest). 8366bis is about messages (data in flight). Most of the current practices lose their meaning. > is > to publish two RFCs: one with motivation and explanation, and the other with > just the YANG module. We had a down-sized version of this in the processing of RFC9595: We were asked to put the YANG module into its own section. (That didn’t make sense here either, because the section before the YANG text was meant to be tightly coupled to the module, so we politely declined.) > cf: > RFC 9417 Service Assurance for Intent-Based Networking Architecture > RFC 9418 A YANG Data Model for Service Assurance > > should this be done for RFC8366bis? No. (Except maybe if you are paid by the count of RFCs published :-) Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
