It's very important to understand the time plan of the RFC bis. We have a draft augmenting RFC7223(I believe we are not the only one), how should we make the reference to RFC7223, or RFC7223bis? Will the RFC revision become a critical point to prevent progressing other draft?
BR, Amy ________________________________________ 发件人: netmod [[email protected]] 代表 Robert Wilton [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2017年7月20日 17:39 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund; Kent Watsen; Phil Shafer; [email protected] 主题: Re: [netmod] Migrating existing RFCs to NMDA Hi Adrian, On 19/07/2017 17:11, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Rob's useful presentation at > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/slides/slides-99-netmod-sessa-nmda-qa-01.pdf > listed a set of RFCs the "need to be updated". "need to be updated" might have been a bit strong on my slides. Really it was the list of RFCs that currently define "foo-state" trees. For some of these drafts/modules it is a open question whether they get updated. My understanding of the current plan is: RFC 6022: YANG Module for NETCONF Monitoring [email protected] defines netconf-state => Unclear whether this needs to be immediately updated. If it does then perhaps it could also be updated by draft-dsdt-nmda-netconf-00 (the proposed protocol updates to NETCONF to support NMDA). RFC 7223: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management [email protected] defines interface-state => Martin Bjorklund to issue a bis version. RFC 7277: A YANG Data Model for IP Management [email protected] augments interface-state => Martin Bjorklund to issue a bis version. RFC 7317: A YANG Data Model for System Management [email protected] defines system-state => Model update looks to be trivial. Martin Bjorklund is one of the authors, so hopefully he can help issue a updated version. RFC 7895: YANG Module Library [email protected] defines module-state => Kent Watsen already has an ID submitted to NETCONF, hopefully should get WG adoption today. RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol [email protected] [email protected] defines restconf-state => Unclear whether this needs to be immediately updated. If it does then perhaps it could also be updated by draft-dsdt-netconf-restconf-nmda-00 (the proposed protocol updates to RESTCONF to support NMDA). RFC 8022: A YANG Data Model for Routing Management [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] defines and augments routing-state => Rob Wilton to help update models, will get from authors to republish, Acee Lindem has indicated that he will help. > > That's a good first step, but we seem to have run out of magic pixie dust here > in the depot, so we were wondering how that "need" is going to be converted to > action. The NMDA authors will help achieve this. > > Is there a plan? If not, what is the plan for a plan? Assuming that the NETCONF, RESTCONF, and YANG libary NMDA updates are supported for adoption by NETCONF WG, then I expect that we should hopefully see draft versions of these updated models shortly (before the next IETF, hopefully sooner than that).. Thanks, Rob > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > . > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
