As co-chair, I have two minds:
1) requests a fix and redo the adoption poll
2) realize that it's a living doc and regardless
how it begins, the WG can sort it out in time.
i.e., we're adopting to work on the problem,
not necessarily the specific solution.
While (1) seems more proper, given the timing of
things, I'm willing to go for (2). To this extent,
the comments being made now be thought to carry
the same weight as Last Call comments. The chairs
will discuss this again when making a determination
on the adoption poll.
As contributor, can we please not call this "YANG
instance data"? - that means something else to
me. This seems to be more about capturing data
about a server instances. So maybe "YANG-based
Server Instance Data"? (open to suggestions!)
Kent
-----Original Message-----
From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Balázs Lengyel
<[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:06 AM
To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll - instance-data
OK, If the chairs are happy with that, I can update the document before
I store it as an official netmod document.
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.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
>> regards 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]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
