On 14/09/2017 15:52, Kent Watsen wrote:
rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module,
but does it actually say it? (I can't find it)
The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to
have a meaningful impact in the wild. I think Juergen said they had this issue
with MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they republish the legacy
MIBs with deprecated status.
So rfc8022bis-02 publishes the v2 module, and the the deprecated version
of the v1 module as an appendix?
I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's general
agreement to do it. Are the authors okay with it, or are there any better
suggestions?
PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a substatement [I just added
this omission to the yang-next tracker]. I think the only way to "deprecate a
module" is to instead deprecate the all the nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module.
Kind of ugly, but it's for a deprecated module, so who care, right? ;)
I see "kind of ugly" as a feature in the this case, someone looking at
the updated v1 module isn't going to be able to miss that whatever they
are looking at is deprecated. ;-)
Rob
Kent
--
Hi Rob,
On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote:
Hi Kent & Lou,
When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process
on these drafts?
I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for
adoption. For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open question
of what to do with the old state tree, but presumably that could be
solved after the draft has been adopted?
I see an update for the third was published yesterday
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02) that
clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably
obsolete 8022. And now that this intended direction is clear in the
draft we could poll it.
I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the
rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than
just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes
marked as deprecated. I think you're right that this could be done post
adoption. Of course others are free to disagree.
I check with Kent and see what he thinks.
Thanks,
Lou
Thanks,
Rob
On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote:
Hey folks,
As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing RFCs to
align them with NMDA. The first batch have been published as individual drafts:
1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00
3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00
Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the related adoption
calls.
Thanks,
Kent (and Lou)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
