Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> wrote: > > > >> There has been discussion about how embedding YANG models in RFCs seems > >> like a > >> poor fit for a number of reasons. By standardizing line-folding mechanisms > >> and > >> claiming them as a best practice, this document reinforces the root of that > >> problem rather than trying to fix it. > > > > Well said, I agree with Alissa's conclusion.
But the algorithm in the document isn't supposed to be used for YANG modules. It is supposed to be used primarily for XML and JSON snippets (etc). > Assuming 'a', yes, 'b' follows 'a'. That said, the concern is nebulous > and how to address it more so. Proposals? > > Assuming the concern is process-overhead for minor spins I think we need to understand what the "number of reasons" Alissa refers to really are, before we try to come up with solutions. /martin > , perhaps we > could leverage the module-versioning work as follows: > > * Initial and NBC modules go thru standard RFC publishing process (i.e., > there is still a need to publish YANG modules in RFCs). > > * BC modules can skip standard publishing process but, to be an "IETF" > product (not some random fork), they would need to be released via an > IETF-owned mechanism (e.g., an Git repo) with restricted write-access. > > Thoughts? > > Kent > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
