On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:37:11AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > - For the pre 09 'camp', it seems integration with YLbis is the key > > technical requirement that is driving them. > > > > What is the key technical critical issue for the other camp? > > We have RFCs in the publication queue (i.e., awaiting RFC numbers) to manage > VPNs, VMs, etc, that are literally only blocked on this work being published > (as written). To change this document in the proposed fashion invalidates the > pending RFCs which would then need to be pulled from the publication queue > and reworked along with the new proposed changes. The industry is waiting on > and needs these RFCs to get work done. I do not think it's reasonable to ask > the industry to now wait even longer to go back and rewrite what is already > good enough and ready for publication and use. >
If the change to schema mount (i.e., how schema information is exposed) invalidates the normative parts of documents that define data models that may exist under a mount point, then I think we got the coupling between documents wrong. Anyway, if we can't find a solution that can work for everybody involved, then we may be left with the only alternative to escalate this further. My guess is that we will only loose time and we will all look stupid at the end, hence I was hoping we could avoid this. /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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
