William Lupton <[email protected]> writes: > Regardless of the discussion about “published”, other organisations > may be planning to use YANG modules that are currently within > IDs. Obviously it’s vastly preferable if such IDs become RFCs before > these other organisations publish any specifications or data models > that use such draft IETF YANG, but it might occasionally be necessary > to reference a draft model (hopefully one that has already been sent > for AD review) in a published standard. This is why I would like the > clarification to cover IDs (at least WG-adopted ones)!
Unfortunately, this sort of problem has to be considered. I remember when the "SIP multiple line appearances" draft was being worked on. Ultimately, there were products on the market that supported the -03 version, the -04 version, and the final (RFC) version. My suggestion is that any time a version of a module is "published", it must either be identical to the previous "published" version, or have a newer revision date. As far as I can see, the *practical* meaning of "published" is a document that has a permanent URL, because you can't convince a customer that a document is a "specification" if it doesn't have a stable URL. For Internet Drafts, that seems to mean each numbered version entered into the Data Tracker. But there is a further problem: A sequence of versions of a module with different revision dates are required to be related by the rules of section 11 of RFC 6020 (or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis), i.e., each newer version is a proper extension of the older version(s). Clearly, we *don't* want to have that constraint between versions of modules in a sequence of I-Ds, we want to be able to delete elements. Dale _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
