All,
Some may have noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the
close of LC and the submission of the publication request for this
document. While it was gated by a minor update, the more significant
reason for the delay was the consideration of how to proceed with models
that contain the -state branch.
As we're sure most are aware we have a design team looking at how
datastores might be used to address the applied vs intended config [1]
and the larger "OpState" discussion. There also has been some
discussion on proposals on how to proceed while their work is ongoing,
including a proposal that I promoted - and this model presents the first
opportunity to implement such.
Based on a fair bit of discussion among the authors, chairs, AD and
design team, we concluded that introducing a new model convention
at this time really doesn't provide any substantive benefit and may in
fact complicate future transition/upgrade approaches. This
consideration is what resulted in the delay.
The impact of this discussion on routing-cfg is no change. The impact
on -state conventions is that, for now, we (as chairs) feel that models
being submitted for publication request by the WG should follow the
conventions found in RFC7223 and the recommendations documented in
6087bis section 5.23 [2]. This of course can be change through
discussion in the WG, e.g., based on the output of the DT.
Lou and Kent
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16491.html
[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-08#section-5.23
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
