regards Balazs
On 2018. 10. 09. 14:25, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi, Balázs Lengyel <[email protected]> wrote:Hello Martin, I agree that this document shall be about defining the file format, and server capabilities shall only be a use-case.) I already took out a lot of text, that explicitly recommended using instance data for documenting capabilities. Server capabilities are only mentioned in the introduction chapter. As you wrote: There is no _normative_ specification of how a server would document its capabilities, because this is what the WG requested, so I removed it.Hmm. Ok, if this is what the WG wants, then it is fine to just have server capabilities as an example use case. (I thought that the WG wanted a normative description of server capabilities...)I see that I forgot to change the title and the introduction can be reworded to make it more clear that documenting server capabilities is just a use-case. (I still see it as the primary use-case for instance data.)I think all text in 2 Introduction (except the last para) in this case should be moved to section 2.1, and new text should be written in 2. (*if* there will be a separate doc for server capabilities, the text in 2 should be moved to that doc instead.)If I promise to change the title and clarify the introduction can you support adoption?First of all I'd like to ensure that the WG in fact just wants to do the file format. Since people have expressed support for adopting the draft with the current title, I'm not so sure that this is the case. I think you should make those changes, and I support the adoption of the modified document. I don't see any reason not to make these chanegs before posting as a WG doc. /martinregards Balazs On 2018. 10. 09. 12:58, Martin Bjorklund wrote:Hi, I still think that this draft should either be split into two, one for specifiying the generic file format (ok with examples), and one for "Documenting Server Capabilities", or the document should just be about the file format (+ *examples*). [The current document mixes the two; it's a bit as if we had "The YANG language and a model for interfaces" as one doc...] It is clear that the document specifies a file format for YANG instance data, which is good. But it is not clear if the document intends to specify how a server should document its capabilities. The Introduction mainly talks about why it is important to document server capabilities. But then AFAICT there is no normative specification of how a server would document its capabilities. /martin Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:All, This is start of a two week poll on making draft-lengyel-netmod-yang-instance-data-04 a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG document. The poll ends Oct 22. Thanks, Lou (and co-chairs) _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Senior Specialist Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected]
-- Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Senior Specialist Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
