> On Aug 26, 2015:7:58 AM, at 7:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Nadeau Thomas <tnad...@lucidvision.com> 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

        Therein lies the salient part of question I am asking: is this really 
the case these days?  The operators seem to be providing an answer that 
contradicts
this age-old assumption. Other projects like ODL are too.  Both have real
deployments too - these reference points are not science projects. I think its
fair to bring this specific issue out in the open here to discuss because its
a real issue we need to solve not just here in NETMOD, but at the IETF 
in general.

        —Tom



_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to