Intuitively, BCP seems the right choice to me. Also, I think it is fine to issue an RFC now even if it is clear it will need updating later. IETF really needs to get better at releasing documents faster, it’s not as if there is a shortage of integers and potential churn is at this point less of a concern than timeliness. So, on those grounds, yes/support.
--- Alex From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 10:45 AM To: Benoit Claise <[email protected]>; NETMOD Working Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP? Hi Benoit, et al., As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I know that Lou does as well (I just asked him). As co-chair, reading Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026, I feel that we need to formally run the decision past the WG. So, without further ado: This is the start of 1-week poll to gauge WG consensus on the proposal to promote rfc6087bis to BCP. We'd like to hear "yes/support" or "no/don't support", with an explanation for why. Please respond by Oct 24. (better, hit the reply-all button now!) Thanks, Kent (and Lou) On 10/17/17, 4:35 AM, "Benoit Claise" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Kent, Hi Benoit, BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability metric that applies to BCPs. The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2026-23section-2D5&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=dL2SzevPrC4Ak-LYJY77M0cArIHFsM3svOz2X06jytY&s=O_GnXGQDkkAG4hGnmdn6udA0s5orNxjkKYYWDoO-MnM&e=> YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another update to this document in the not too distant future. Does that disqualify it in any way? I don't think so. Implicitly, this says: The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community current deliberations. If the YANG use and knowledge spread, this document will evolve in the future. The problem to be solved, which I faced: "RFC6087 is informational (as opposed to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it" Regards, Benoit Kent On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear all, I'm wondering if it's not time to classify draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP, as opposed to informational This text would need to change: This document is similar to the Structure of Management Information version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent and structure. However, since that document was written a decade after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was published as a 'Best Current Practice' (BCP). This document is not a BCP, but rather an informational reference, intended to promote consistency in documents containing YANG modules. Indeed, it seems to me that the consistency in YANG modules is a pretty important topic. Feedback? Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
