Hi, I am trying to complete rfc6087bis. It has been held up waiting for this draft. It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change. Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to this new draft?
Andy On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Now that the new NETMOD and NETCONF charters have been approved, it's time > to think about the guidelines for YANG module authors. > > The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) addresses the > so-called "OpState problem" that has been the subject of much discussion in > the IETF. NMDA is still in development, and there will be a transition > period before NMDA solutions are universally available. > > The NETMOD Datastore Design Team and the Routing Yang Architecture Design > Team have worked with Alia and Benoit to create initial guidelines for how > the NMDA, as defined in draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/>, > impacts Yang models. The draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines/> individual > draft was foundational in helping creating those guidelines. > > If you have questions or concerns on how these guidelines should apply to > work of interest, please contact your WG Chairs or ADs. > > It is our strong recommendation, as ADs with agreement from the NETMOD WG > Chairs, that models SHOULD move as quickly as possible to the NMDA. The > specific approach to be taken for models being developed now and during the > NMDA transition period should be based on both the expected usage and the > maturity of the data model. > > 1. New models and models that are not concerned with the operational state > of configuration information SHOULD immediately be structured to be > NMDA-compatible. > > 2. Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system created" > information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. Then derived versions of these > models SHOULD be created, either by hand or with suitable tools, that > follow the current modeling strategies. In some cases, the non-NMDA model > may be an existing model and not derived from the NMDA model. In all cases, > the NMDA and non-NMDA modules SHOULD be published in the same document, > with NMDA modules in the document main body and the non-NMDA modules in an > Appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary bridging of > the time period until NMDA implementations are available. The non-NMDA > module names should include ’-state’ appended. > > We would like to thank Kent Watsen, Lou Berger, Rob Wilton, Martin > Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Acee Lindem, Chris Hopps, Juergen Schoenwaelder, > and all others who helped develop these guidelines. > > Regards, > Alia Atlas, Routing AD > Deborah Brungard, Routing AD > Alvaro Retana, Routing AD > Warren Kumari, Operations & Management AD > Benoit Claise, Operations & Management AD > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
