Thanks Mahesh-san, please discuss with your co-AD and in the ops area whether an informational draft or RFC carries YANG modules with ietf prefix or not.
I think that a consistent view from OPSADs and the ops area for that helps to avoid confusions, not only for dmm, but also all other WGs in the IETF. cheers, --satoru > On Sep 18, 2025, at 19:07, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanand...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Saturn-san, > > >> >> On Sep 18, 2025, at 11:16 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> >> I would add a background on this sprit. During the last meeting an OPSAD who >> gave us his feedback, like it is ok to include the YANG module in the INFO >> draft. However another AD gave us opposite feedback. So the chairs and the >> authors decided to sprit the draft, which looks more likely and safer way. > > My take (as one of the OPS AD) is that it is ok for an informational draft to > carry a YANG module. While it might be safe, if the document is being split > just for that reason, it is unnecessary overhead. We should be making it > easier, not harder to publish documents especially those that contain YANG > modules. > > Just my 2 cents (1 if you count inflation 😀) > > Mahesh Jethanandani > mjethanand...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list -- d...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dmm-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
