Hi, With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way to achieve this.
I agree with Lada that deprecating all the schema nodes is unnecessary. However, we’ll do what it takes to reach consensus and satisfy the most pedantic among us. Thanks, Acee On 9/15/17, 6:38 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Kent Watsen píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 14:52 +0000: >> 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 modules contained therein have different names and namespaces, so >there is >no formal ancestry. I would prefer to keep the modules from RFC 8022 as >they are >- some weirdos may still want to use them. > >> >> 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. >> >> 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 think it is unnecessary. If somebody needs adding such a module to the >data >model, he/she should probably have a reason to do so, such as data >implemented >on the server. > >Lada > >> >> 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 >-- >Ladislav Lhotka >Head, CZ.NIC Labs >PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
