> On Aug 26, 2015:7:58 AM, at 7:58 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [Speaking for myself]
>>
>> Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to
>> structure, or is it a resistance to churn/change?
>
> The former. IMO this is technically not a good proposal, as I have
> tried to explain several times.
>
>> 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.
>
> In this specific case the change is cosmetic but has disastrous
> effects on other standard modules, other vendor-specific modules,
> existing server code and existing client code. I think people expect
> IETF standards to be a bit more stable than that.
>
>
> /martin
Therein lies the salient part of question I am asking: is this really
the case these days? The operators seem to be providing an answer that
contradicts
this age-old assumption. Other projects like ODL are too. Both have real
deployments too - these reference points are not science projects. I think its
fair to bring this specific issue out in the open here to discuss because its
a real issue we need to solve not just here in NETMOD, but at the IETF
in general.
—Tom
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
