Hi Andy, I confirmed with Lou and Benoit that we want 6.23 to have the normative text within it, as we're both unsure about if the nmda-guidelines draft will progress and also believe that the text could be written more helpfully for the 6087bis audience.
Would it help if one of the nmda-guidelines authors wrote the section for you? Thanks, Kent // co-chair On 6/20/17, 11:27 AM, "Andy Bierman" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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
