|
Hello Kent,
If needed I can do a quick update, but
- As you stated this is a living document
- IMHO the scope is clear: This is only a data format draft, how
it is used is only here a set of use-cases. I did not see anyone
disagreeing with this.
- I would like to avoid redoing this poll.
- My wish (if the good fairy can fulfill it) is that the draft
is adopted, and I update it before the IETF to clarify the scope
as above.
Naturally I will consider all other comments too, but they may
take some time to discuss.
regards Balazs
On 2018. 10. 09. 19:07, Kent Watsen
wrote:
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]
|
smime.p7s