>On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:25:35AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote: >> >> Perhaps I apply a different discount rate on the future particularly >> when timelines are involved. e.g. 3 months turns into a year and half >> pretty quickly. > > I provided a reasoning why 3 months may be feasible, I doubled it > since its the IETF. You may apply the factor 6. But note that the last > piece of NMDA (the YANG library) is work reasonably well understood > with people dedicated to finish the last piece (obviously my very > biased view).
I believe the issue isn't so much the timing on the YANG Library bis, so much as the timing on having an updated schema-mount draft that is NMDA-compatible. >> I think it's more a question of can we live with publishing the module >> now as is? Or can we not live with publishing it now? > > The question is what we expect implementors to do and how we think > about achieving interoperability by publishing two significantly > different versions instead of one. Agreed, we will need to provide guidance with this approach. Kent // nobody _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
