Hi, I support BCP status. This is consistent with RFC 4181, which RFC 6087 was modeled after.
Andy On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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] on behalf of [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 > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
