From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Henk Birkholz <[email protected]> Sent: 14 September 2022 15:07
Dear OPSAWG members, this email starts a two week period for a Working Group Last Call of > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-07.html ending on Thursday, September 28th. The authors believe the Internet-Draft is ready for a WGLC and the chairs agree. The draft has been discussed visibly at IETF 114 and review feedback has been incorporated in -07. Please send your comments to the list and your assessment of whether or not it is ready to proceed to publication before September 28th. <tp> Not Ready. This I-D contains a YANG module for IANA to maintain along with YANG modules and other data which are not. I think that this approach is always wrong. The two sets of material have different life cycles. The IANA-maintained module is effectively obsolete as soon as the RFC is published since the contents are then maintained by IANA; anyone seeing the module in the RFC will be looking at obsolete - sooner or later - material. Users should always be looking at the IANA website. There is no way to tell users this in the published status of an RFC. The remaining material in the I-D is likely to be updated over time and then the authors have a choice of two bad approaches. They can cut out the IANA-maintained module in which case the new document sort of obsoletes the old one but not quite and a lot more editing is needed; or they can republish the IANA-maintained module which by then will have been obsolete for some time and almost certainly wrong. Hence an IANA-maintained module should always be published on its own. Tom Petch For the OPSAWG co-chairs, Henk _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
