On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2015:11:06 AM, at 11:06 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> if we want people to take YANG modules appearing in I-Ds seriously and >> implement them, then we should apply the revisioning rules to them. That >> is, if a module changes between two I-D revisions, then its revision-date >> has to be bumped and a new entry added to the revision history. As it is >> now, the I-D-based modules are esentially revisionless. >> >> > > The revision rules only apply to published modules. > In IETF-speak, that means an RFC. An Internet Draft > is a work-in-progress. We update the revision date every time > the module changes, but the numerous incremental changes > for a work-in-progress should not be recorded in the module > revision history. They should be recorded in the Change Log appendix. > > I will try to make this procedure more clear in the YANG guidelines draft. > > > The question is one of “published”. So at the IETF that means an RFC > today, but Lada makes a good point in that in our new rapid development > environment we may never get to RFCs for most of the models being worked > on today - or not for some time. If we want those I-Ds to be used in > production, it might make sense to define an I-D as “published”. > > As I pointed out earlier, for other organizations, they have different > definitions of “published”, so we should consider a more flexible > definition of > “published” to encompass those. Its probably not a big deal to just say > something like, “other organizations that define models will define their > own definition of stable/published, and in those cases, that will > suffice as the threshold for a version and following the updating > rules described herein." > I think we should just try to focus on our own standards development process. Other organizations can adopt or reject IETF practices if they want. We are using the same definition of published for about 25 years. It means RFC in our process. In a vendor environment, it means modules released to customers. We don't have a rapid development environment in the IETF. If people want to implement half-baked YANG modules, that is their business. They should be commended if they actually provide implementation feedback into the RFC, but a work-in-progress is not a published module. > —Tom > Andy > > > > > > >> Lada >> >> > Andy > > > >> -- >> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
