Hi,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in > which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update > (posted November 2nd). So the document is in a limbo state since > November 6th. > > Can somebody please answer some simple questions: Q1) why can't SM use augment to add objects to YLbis? Q2) why should readers/developers of YLbis need to know about SM if their implementations do not support SM at all? Q3) Is there a msg in the email archive that explains the reasons that YLbis needs to be delayed? Where is the concrete proposal to add specific objects to YLbis? /js > > Andy > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:58:15PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > It was WG Last Call’ed: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ > csUvs6408En0yY-vapyU3IFcJqQ > > > > And it was closed: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/ > arch/msg/netmod/gbXE4Le1I_3Y5oaNnpjYoZZZ4lw > > > > However, it may not have ever completed. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > On 1/22/18, 11:45 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs- > university.de> wrote: > > > > Acee, > > > > the documents that have already finished WG Last Call have a > normative > > reference on schema mount, which has not yet finished WG Last Call as > > far as I recall. I think the RFC editor does not publish a document > > with a missing normative reference. I continue to believe that the > > time difference between doing the right thing and doing something > > faster using definition we are in the process to deprecate is really > > small. But of course, I may be entirely wrong. > > > > /js > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:18:15PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > Hi Lada, > > > > > > My primary concern is that the YANG Schema Mount delay will not > only hold the NI/LNE but all the models that are dependent on them (e.g., > L2VPN and L3VPN). This is for a document that has already finished WG Last > Call. Additionally, your estimate for the size of the change and time to > reach standardization is based on there being immediate consensus on the > changes. This is probably overly optimistic given there was discussion on > the proposed YANG Library BIS changes. I’d vote to publish the existing > draft. > > > > > > In any case, being able to see the proposed changes ASAP is > critical. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Acee > > > > > > On 1/22/18, 8:45 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > writes: > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:05:15PM +0000, Robert Wilton > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hence, for me, I see the choice as: > > > >> 1) do we publish the existing model now (perhaps also mark > the draft as > > > >> experimental) followed by an updated draft with the NMDA > compatible module? > > > >> 2) do we publish both models in a single draft (e.g. with > the existing model > > > >> in an appendix)? > > > >> 3) do we only publish a single version of the draft with an > NMDA compliant > > > >> solution. > > > >> > > > > > > > > I think the situation is as follows (likely obvious but it > may help to > > > > make sure we are all on the same page): > > > > > > > > - the NI and LNE models have a normative reference to > > > > I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount (and this makes sense since > there are > > > > MUST sentences in the I-D) > > > > > > > > - I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount (last updated in October) has > normative > > > > references to RFC 7895 (old YANG library) > > > > > > > > - RFC 7895 does not work with NMDA, NMDA work on a YANG > library update > > > > replacing RFC 7895 > > > > > > > > So the YANG library update is gating the schema mount update > which is > > > > gating the publication of the NI and LNE models. > > > > > > > > A proper solution would be to prioritize work on the YANG > library > > > > update and the schema mount update. I assume that the next > revision of > > > > the YANG library update (say end of January) is ready for WG > last call > > > > and perhaps the schema mount authors can take an effort to > get that > > > > document there as well, say beginning of February. > > > > > > I completely agree. > > > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen > gGmbH > > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen > | Germany > > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs- > university.de/> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > netmod mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > -- > > > Ladislav Lhotka > > > Head, CZ.NIC Labs > > > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | > Germany > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > > > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
