> On Dec 22, 2015:10:53 AM, at 10:53 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
So that is exactly what I was suggesting the document’s text
be changed to. At the present time it refers to the IETF’s process
only.
—Tom
>
> /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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
