> On Aug 26, 2015:5:51 AM, at 5:51 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On August 26, 2015 2:42:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>>> > Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor
>>> > models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that
>>> > a group of people "really like it" some other way.
>>>
>>> I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a
>>> compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who
>>> have stated willingness (or even support) for change. I think having a
>>> major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner
>>> some notice.
>>
>> Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published
>> proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think
>> there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and
>> to redo them.
>>
>
> As Acee says, we have been trying very hard to minimize any impact to
> existing work even when the result is suboptimal. I also agree that changing
> PS RFCs should not be done without serious consideration. That said, the IETF
> process does permit updates and replacements based on WG and IETF consensus
> -- which is not quite the same as your last statement.
>
> Lou
[Speaking for myself]
Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to
structure, or is it a resistance to churn/change? And if we solved the latter
by say relaxing the rules around how we progress models to PS, would this
alleviate the concerns for the former? The meta question I will ask is: is the
existing RFC process adequate/sufficient for us to move forward on such a large
scale with Yang models at the IETF? Other organizations currently iterate on
models using certain revision conventions (that are consistent with the rules
we put out here) yet produce multiple versions of the same model within the
same year. As a matter of fact, multiple versions are allowed to coexist
within a single implementation. In stark contrast, the M.O. at the IETF has
been to treat Yang models much like we did SNMP MIBs (or any other document
here) thereby assuming that once it becomes an RFC, that it is largely set in
concrete for many years to come.
—tom
>
>
>> /js
>>
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
