On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:05:27PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags-05 > > Please voice your support or objections on list before August 31. > > Notes: > 1) -03 was presented during the 108 session, hence the I-D has been > updated twice since then. > 2) Please be aware that IPR has been filed for this I-D: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags > > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-tao-netmod-yang-node-tags>. >
I am against adoption. I am against introducing a collection of standards-track extension statements without answering the question who controls, enforces and reviews the usage of these extension statements (when and how are they used). Some statements and tags are either addressing issues caused by underspecified YANG modules or they overlap with the deviation mechanism that we have in place since day one of YANG. Others are very vaguely specified, it is unclear how they will lead to interoperable behavior. If module authors are too lazy to use existing YANG mechanisms properly, does it make sense to add more mechanism to the YANG eco system? I doubt it. /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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
