Quote what Mahesh and Joe said below: " As an experiment, the draft has to define a criterion for success. What is that criterion?
Currently, the draft is using speed, or more precisely, time, to define success. Two years to develop a new module and one year for a -bis version of the module. Joe in IETF 125 said, "As I said in my email before 125, I think the experiment can 'fail' with respect to allotted time, but it may have proven successful in the SCM aspects. The timing failure may be due to other process issues, and a report can help illuminate those." Therefore, should the criterion be: speed of development number of errata filed against the module how many downloads something else? " I fully agree with Joe that there are many other factors to decide experiment success. If we only measure success from speed perspective, we might get false negative test results since experiment work take The same IETF process expect moving YANG data model to a separate IETF host repository. So I think For an updated Module, If IETF YANG model can be updated using IETF errata report and WG github without republishing as a new RFC, the experiment should also be deemed as success. For an Updated Module, IETF errata report can also be used to keep track of the changes of the existing module such as YANG only update or RFC text only update, the Area Director (AD) reviews the technical change and mark the errata as "Verified" using the standard IETF database. For YANG only update, AD’s approval will trigger Editors of the YANG module to file a PR and incorporate changes into the WG repository. Here is the proposed change to VELOCE： https://github.com/mjethanandani/veloce/pull/29 https://github.com/mjethanandani/veloce/pull/30/changes -Qin _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
