On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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. > I know -- I added issue #25 4 days ago: https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues/25 > > —Tom > > > Andy > > > > /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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
