> On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an Informational > RFC that defined the YANG datastores?
My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular set of datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed. Lada > > If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is actually > required to support the revised datastores draft) then does that mean we > would also need to have a new version of YANG? > > That would potentially seem like a backwards step. Also what would it mean > for an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is using a mix > of YANG modules with different versions? > > I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be standards > track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting that they are > really only in the one draft at this stage because it seemed like that would > make it easier for folks to review and comment on. > > Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on? > > Thanks, > Rob > > > On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote: >> I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis. >> >> Mehmet >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM >>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]>; >>> Mehmet Ersue <[email protected]> >>> Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal >>> >>> Juergen, >>> >>> Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the technical >>> contents of a document drives the intended status of a document. >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not* typically >>> included in charters and are not included in the distributed version. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote: >>>> >>>>> That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think the DS >>>>> concept document is Informational in nature and should be published as >>> an >>>>> Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in >> diverse >>>>> protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an overlapping >>>>> between NETCONF and NETMOD charters. >>>> The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity definitions >>>> for datastores and origins and these definitions better be standards >>>> track. >>>> >>>> /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 -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
