Hi,
Going back to the questions from Ketan and the follow-ups, just to make sure
that I am not misunderstanding:
> At a high-level, I would like to discuss and understand whether YANG model
> documents can be experimental or informational. I think the answer is YES? But
> this is not clear.
The model/module itself is not PS/EXP/INFO, the document in which it resides is
(what Benoit said).
> A follow-on question: what is the guidance for YANG models
> specified in standards track document being augmented by modules in
> experimental or informational track document? I think the answer is NO? But
> again, this is not clear.
For me the answer is Yes.
Regards,Reshad.
On Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 12:12:12 PM EDT, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
Re-,
Thanks, Benoît. Very useful.
=
I believe the above text does the job. Why do we need to specify more than the
above?
If we do, we would be inventing rules here, like "exp-ietf" :-(
It's best too provide guidance only on Standards Tracks, while everybody else
can follow them if they want
=
I made the following in -26:
OLD:
These guidelines are intended to be used by authors and reviewers to
improve the readability and interoperability of published YANG data
models.
NEW:
These guidelines are intended to be used by authors and reviewers to
improve the readability and interoperability of published YANG data
models. These guidelines can be used independent of the IETF
publication stream or even by other organizations.
Cheers,
Med
De : Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 17:41
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>
Cc : NETMOD Group <[email protected]>; Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
Objet : Re: [netmod] Re: YANG in EXP/INFO Documents (was RE: Ketan Talaulikar's
Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Med,
On 6/4/2025 1:44 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Benoît,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I would prefer to avoid the splitting-hair type of discussion :-), but the
situation is that the 8407 has many statements based on the standards track vs.
else. For example,
==
4. YANG Usage Guidelines
Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all
syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.1 [RFC7950].
…
The following example URNs would be valid namespace statement values
for Standards Track modules:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-partial-lock
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-state
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf
Note that a different URN prefix string SHOULD be used for modules
that are not Standards Track.
…
==
I believe the above text does the job. Why do we need to specify more than the
above?
If we do, we would be inventing rules here, like "exp-ietf" :-(
It's best too provide guidance only on Standards Tracks, while everybody else
can follow them if they want
This discussion is not part of the scope we set for this bis, but Ketan raised
fair questions.
I’m still interested to hear cases where you think that a “normative YANG”
module makes sense in an Info spec.
Actually, I don't want to have to be thinking about all the different corner
cases and come up with rules here ;-)
I can guess that there will a good situation in the future for which we don't
want to write down the rules in stone now.
I just made up examples:
- what if I want a YANG module for NetFlow version 9 (RFC 3954) or Sflow (RFC
3176), should this RFC be Informational?
- what about the syslog YANG module, RFC 9742 based on RFC 3164? We could say
that it must "Informational" because the normative reference RFC 3164 is
informational... euh wait RFC 3164 is not even in the references???
It doesn't matter in the end, that's my point.
What does matter to me is that we do NOT call the Sflow one "inf-sflow" and
that we don't have too rigid rules.
I hope this helps.
Regards, Benoit
Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
De : Benoit Claise<[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 14:17
À : Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed
INNOV/NET<[email protected]>
Cc : NETMOD Group <[email protected]>
Objet : Re: [netmod] Re: YANG in EXP/INFO Documents (was RE: Ketan Talaulikar's
Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Dear all,
This discussion about YANG module in EXP/INFO seems to me as a splitting-hair
type of discussion.
Starting from the very first question: "At a high-level, I would like to
discuss and understand whether YANG model documents can be experimental or
informational." My answer: No, a YANG module just happens to be in a
PS/EXP/INFO document. Note: to find this related document, see
www.yangcatalog.org Let's not try to convey the subtle IETF differences between
PS/EXP/INFO into the YANG modules themselves. And having "exp-ietf" is simply a
bad idea. What if the experiment is successful, are we going to re-publish as
"ietf"? It doesn't make sense from an API point of view.
>From there, the augmentation questions "A follow-on question: what is the
>guidance for YANG models specified in standards track document being augmented
>by modules in experimental or informational track document?" are irrelevant.
Regards, Benoit
On 6/4/2025 11:15 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi Med,
My individual preference (i.e., w/o my AD hat), would be to leave them
separate. That content seems more appropriate for a standards track document
and not this BCP.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Re-,
Regarding a prefix of "exp-ietf" for experimental. That would be changing what
is in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6020#section-14 which allows for
"ieft-" for all of the IETF stream tracks. I would suggest starting that as a
separate conversation outside of this current document.
[Med] FYI, we used to have updates to IANA cons in 6020 as part of the 8407bis.
These matters are covered now in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020-iana-update-01.
Both will be synced if we conclude to go that path.
Cheers,
Med
De : Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 10:00
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>
Cc : Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; NETMOD Group
<[email protected]>
Objet : Re: YANG in EXP/INFO Documents (was RE: [netmod] Ketan Talaulikar's
Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi Med and netmod WG,
I see a YANG module as adjunct to the feature that it enables operations and
management for. My view comes mostly from the routing and routing protocols
space. I realize that at various other levels of abstractions and types of
models, the views would be different.
Coming back to the application of YANG models for routing, I believe it should
follow the status of the feature. I am assuming that the IETF strongly wants to
encourage development of YANG modules to happen adjunct (and preferably in the
same document?) as the rest of the protocol spec.
I view this debate about standards/experimental/information more as a
distraction from the main purpose of this document
(draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis) - which is guidelines for writing/reviewing YANG
modules (in the IETF?).
There will continue to be debates about the correct track of both the protocol
specs and their corresponding YANG modules.There is a great deal of
subjectivity and decisions are made by the WGs, ADs, IESG on a case by case
basis. Let it be so. I also want to try and impress that Experimental specs are
all not some weird stuff being produced (though opinions vary widely from case
to case basis). There are enough experiments (and even things in informational
documents) that have gone on to gain mainstream industry relevance.
How about this document steers clear of that debate and instead focuses on the
modules themselves? How about we just say for all of the IETF stream documents?
That will address my concerns.
Regarding a prefix of "exp-ietf" for experimental.That would be changing what
is in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6020#section-14 which allows for
"ieft-" for all of the IETF stream tracks. I would suggest starting that as a
separate conversation outside of this current document.
Thanks,
Ketan
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
(restricting the discussion to netmod, for now).
I don't think that it makes sense to publish a normative YANG module in an
Informational RFC. Whether we care about interoperability or not. If we care,
and a normative YANG module is provided, publishing as Informational should not
be an option.
I'm also not comfortable claiming that we can publish a "normative" YANG as
experimental (whatsoever that means), at least without cautions. Beyond YANG,
publishing as Exp has a meaning and implications (including process-wise). For
example, RFC2026 says:
The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that
is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification
is published for the general information of the Internet technical
community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
editorial considerations and to verification that there has been
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An
Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet
research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working
Group, or it may be an individual contribution.
Of course, the guidance in 8407bis can be followed by authors for such
document, if they wish so. However, I don't think we need to have strong
expectations on that. For example,
* an experiment may have its own cycles and should not be subject, for example,
to the lifecycle constraints we impose for deprecating/obsoleting/etc.
* a module in an exp spec may not need to be registered within IANA as an
experiment is in a limited domain and does not involve multiple implementations.
* an experiment may be precisely about testing things that are not compliant
with guidance
Another dimension is that publishing as Exp require adequate justification why
we can't publish as PS. For the specific case of YANG, the status of the
underlying technology should not be the only criteria here as we are dealing
with the interop between two peers independent of the objects they manipulates.
At least from where I sit, a normative module can be defined as PS even if the
underlying technology was Info (e.g., RFC9105).
Things may get complicated with the augmentations and leaking outside the IETF.
I think I would prefer making this change:
OLD:
All normative YANG modules published by the
IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-".
NEW:
All normative YANG modules published in Standards Track documents by the
IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-". YANG modules published in
Experimental
documents by the IETF MUST begin with the prefix "exp-ietf".
(I prefer exp-ietf to ietf-exp)
Please share your thoughts and suggestions.
Cheers,
Med (as contributor)
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>
> Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 07:10
> À : Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
> Cc : The IESG <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-netmod-
> [email protected]; NETMOD WG Chairs <[email protected]>;
> NETMOD Group <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[email protected]>
> Objet : Re: [netmod] Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-
> netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
>
> I am jumping into the middle of a discussion, but I do agree that
> some of the questions raised by Ketan merit a debate.
>
> > On Jun 2, 2025, at 11:03 PM, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thanks to the authors and the WG for your work on this important
> document.
> >
> > I have one high-level point that I would like to discuss with the
> > authors and the WG since is it not clear - this is regarding
> > experimental and information track YANG module documents in IETF
> stream.
> >
> > At a high-level, I would like to discuss and understand whether
> YANG
> > model documents can be experimental or informational. I think the
> > answer is YES? But this is not clear. A follow-on question: what
> is
> > the guidance for YANG models specified in standards track
> document
> > being augmented by modules in experimental or informational track
> > document? I think the answer is NO? But again, this is not clear.
>
> As far as I understand, an experimental draft can define a protocol
> normatively using key words from RFC 2119. Similarly, a YANG module
> should be allowed to be normatively defined in a experimental
> draft.
>
> What I am not clear on is the follow-on question. Are you asking if
> a YANG module in an experimental draft can augment a YANG module in
> a PS? My take is that, it should be allowed.
>
> >
> > Please also see in the comments sections for some concerns that
> are
> > related to this topic - those are provided inline for better
> context.
> >
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This
message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information
that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied
without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be
altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or
falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list --
[email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This
message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information
that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied
without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be
altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or
falsified. Thank you.
_________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________ _
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you._______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
