Hi, I support the adoption but I propose two conceptual changes:
1. Introduce a new module name and namespace so that it is not necessary to carry along the deprecated baggage. If readability is the primary concern, this is IMO the way to go. Instead of "ietf-ip-2", I'd suggest something like "ietf- ip-nmda". 2. Avoid obsoleting RFC 7277. I believe the old modules may continue to be used in areas where NMDA is an overkill, such as open source home routers. NMDA implementors should be aware of the new modules but there is no need to eradicate the old data models. #2 applies also to other modules for which the NMDA version is underway. Lada PS. The subject is wrong, it shoud be -rfc7277bis- Lou Berger píše v Po 18. 09. 2017 v 10:33 -0400: > All, > > This is start of a two week poll on making > draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7227bis-00 a working group document. Please > send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". > If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If > yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see > addressed once the document is a WG document. > > The poll ends Oct 2. > > Thanks, > > Lou (and Kent) > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
