On 15/09/2017 15:52, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
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.
Can we not adopt regardless? We know that we are going to bis 8022, and
having an adopted draft gives it a bit more legitimacy and helps other
folks to migrate.
Or perhaps we can start the call for adoption and continue to try and
resolve this issue at the same time ;-). I think that it would be good
to try and get the updated model drafts to WG LC by Singapore.
I know that it hasn't been asked yet, but I support adoption of any 8022
bis draft that (i) provides the correct NDMA combined tree (ii) removes
or deprecates the old state nodes :-)
Sorry, if I'm being pushy :-)
Rob
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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
