Hi, I rewrote 6.23 and it points at the NMDA guidelines. The drafts will get published together so the references will be to RFCs, not I-Ds. That is usually what is meant by the comment below I think
> I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently. Agreed. Andy On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > > > Guidelines for > > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. > > I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc. Ideally 6087bis > can just state what people should do, without providing a formula for > transitioning. > > > > I thought 6087bis is supposed to point people to the NMDA guidelines. > That is why 6087bis has been held back for so long, even though it was > > supposed to be published with YANG 1.1. > > > > We waste a lot of time refactoring drafts and re-reviewing them. > > IMO the RD guidelines should be in the RD draft. > > > > > > <KENT> I thought that this was settled before (maybe not): > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pDLDm8gdIBwwyGyfa_acVKHtu_Q > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
