Hi, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I was looking at how yd:yang-data (this draft) relates to > rc:yang-data (rfc8040). The document seems to imply that this draft's > extension is a replacement in one place (see abstract) , is supplemental > in another (sec 1, plus augment-yang-data example) and perhaps > orthogonal in a final (that rc:yang-data is still used/referenced at > all). I think the document should be clear as to it's objective with > respect to rc:yang-data.
Agreed. It is intended to replace rc:yang-data. I have fixed the example that used rc:yang-data. Do you think we need any changes to section 1 to clarify this? > As rc:yang-data is currently defined in a protocol specific way, I (with > any/all hats) would prefer to see a definition of yang-data that would > work for any protocol that encodes and transports yang. I also > generally think that having two definitions for basically the same > mechanism isn't beneficial to implementors of IETF RFCs, so this leads > me to suggest that if this document becomes a WG document it should > deprecate rc:yang-data. I assume this would formally mean that this document would "Update" RFC 8040, and then in the document have text that explains that rc:yang-data is deprecated? Or do you suggest that we actually do a 8040bis that formally marks the rc:yang-data extension as "deprecated", and instead uses yd:yang-data? /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
