As the YANG document is standalone you may want to ensure you are still complying with netmod criteria for such RFCs.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 2:39 PM Charlie Perkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello folks, > > During the [dmm] meeting at IETF 104, I suggested that we should try > breaking the YANG definitions out into a different document so that > potential reviewers would not be intimidated by 150+ pages of document > text. I got reasonable support for at least trying the idea. If it > doesn't work, I will volunteer to recombine them in the future. > > Briefly scanning the base document, I see that it needs another pass for > readability as well. That will take a while, so I propose to do that > later after the submission of the two companion documents. I will scan > both documents for consistency and so on, but they are ready for > submission now. In the YANG document, I was considering to include a > list (without definitions) in the Terminology section for the FPC terms > that are defined in the base document. Comments are welcome about that > suggestion. > > Suresh has expressed the opinion that it would be O.K. to have the > companion YANG document considered to be a WG document. If anyone in > the [dmm] group has objections to this proposal, please let me know. > > Thanks in advance! > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
