Hi Rob, Unfortunately our draft augments /interfaces-state/statistics/ and /interfaces-state/.
Here's the link of our draft, it will be very nice of you to review and give further suggestion. Thanks. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang/?include_text=1 BR, Amy ________________________________________ 发件人: Robert Wilton [[email protected]] 发送时间: 2017年7月20日 20:32 收件人: Yemin (Amy); [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Bjorklund; Kent Watsen; Phil Shafer; [email protected] 主题: Re: [netmod] Migrating existing RFCs to NMDA Hi Amy, On 20/07/2017 14:09, Yemin (Amy) wrote: > 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? If your module is just augmenting /interfaces/ and /interfaces-state/ then you have no direct dependency on RFC7223-bis. The dependency only exists if your module is augmenting /interfaces-state/statistics/, or any of the leaves in /interfaces-state/ that don't also already exist in /interfaces/. > Will the RFC revision become a critical point to prevent progressing other > draft? For some modules, potentially yes. If you send me a pointer to your draft I can check whether you have any dependency on RC7223bis or not. But I totally agree that we need to update the updated drafts out quickly. Thanks, Rob > > > 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
