The WG needs to agree whether a -state module in the Appendix is needed. I just commented on the proposal to add a subtree, which violates the guidelines.
/js On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 01:13:06PM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote: > Either defining a new module in an Appendix or a subtree, I am OK with either > and both of us concur that the draft needs the changes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 17 October 2018 18:18 > To: Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] Review comments for module-tags-02 > > Obviously, this is now a slightly different statement. There are NMDA > transition guidelines that have been discussed at length and finally been > integated into > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.23.3 > > This section 4.23.3 says under case (a): > > Both the NMDA and the non-NMDA modules SHOULD > be published in the same document, with NMDA modules in the document > main body and the non-NMDA modules in a non-normative appendix. > > In other words, you do not pollute a new NMDA module with non-NMDA subtrees > but instead you create an additional module that goes into an appendix and is > only relevant for transition purposes. I think Rob created tools to generate > such things. Section 4.23.3.1 also provides some guidelines for creating > temporary non NMDA modules. > > /js > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 12:22:39PM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote: > > If the server does not yet support NETCONF-NMDA / RESTCONF-NMDA drafts, > > then we will need this separate subtree to show the system defined tags. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 17 October 2018 17:22 > > To: Rohit R Ranade <[email protected]> > > Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [netmod] Review comments for module-tags-02 > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:46:03AM +0000, Rohit R Ranade wrote: > > > > > I think we need to define a subtree for non-NMDA clients to get the > > > operational tags. > > > > It is not much of a change for a _client_ to read a different datastore > > hence I do not think this is needed. > > > > /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/> > > -- > 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
