> On Dec 22, 2015:10:23 AM, at 10:23 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 16:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:34:41AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Dec 2015, at 11:06, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 08:09:13PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why the definition what 'published' means in the IETF is in the
>>>>>> guidelines document. On the other hand, since this is an IETF
>>>>>> document, I also do not find it problematic to define IETF rules
>>>>>> here. Others should be able to skip over this. There are really more
>>>>>> important problems to solve.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not clear at all from sec. 10 that data modellers outside IETF may
>>>>> skip over this. I am not even sure that everybody in this WG agrees with
>>>>> your interpretation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> - Section 10 in RFC 6020 applies to all published modules.
>>>
>>> The bullets specifying the rules are introduced with this sentence:
>>>
>>> 'A definition may be revised in any of the following ways:'
>>>
>>> so IMO it is intended to apply to *all* modules. Are you saying that it
>>> actually means
>>>
>>> 'A definition in a module published by IETF may be revised in any of the
>>> following ways:'?
>>>
>>
>> A definition in a published module may be revised [...]
>>
>>>> - The definition of what turns a module into a published module is
>>>> specific to the different organizations publishing modules.
>>>
>>> So it means that such an organization may also decide to ignore the rules
>>> entirely or replace them with its own rules.
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> If the WG can agree on this and make the corresponding changes in sec. 11
>>> of 6020bis, then I have no more objections.
>>
>> The rules are there to ensure interoperability. Interoperability is an
>> issue for published modules (but not for modules under development).
>
> This doesn't make much sense unless you give an objective definition of
> "published". For example, are proprietary modules (developed by vendors) ever
> published?
And that is the point I made the other day. Simply saying that
definition is The IETF’s
definition forms a rather circular argument.
—Tom
>
>> The IETF certainly has a history to care about interoperability. I
>> expect that other organizations care about interoperability as well.
>
> That's their business.
>
> Lada
>
>>
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> --
> 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
