On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:23:44PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka 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? >
This has to be late binding - an organization publishing modules will have to define what 'publishing' means for them and they will have to decide whether they publish anything at all. /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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
