Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

I was also encouraged to provide comments. A couple (new?) minor ones... Section 3.4: - If a tree diagram is included for an augmented model, it SHOULD contain the integrated of the augmented model. I.e., use the pyang -f command to generate the tree so that you can explicitly see the schema

[netmod] can a 'must' statement point to a 'choice' node?

I'm getting mixed results from pyang and yanglint. Can the XPath used in a 'must' statement point to a 'choice' node? In the below YANG snippet from the zerotouch draft, the idea is that, if at least one URI is specified, then a hash needs to be present as well, but any hash is okay,

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

Hi Kent Two quick replies, inline, Thanks --- Alex > -Original Message- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:30 AM > To: Alexander Clemm ; netmod@ietf.org > Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org;

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi, I support BCP status. This is consistent with RFC 4181, which RFC 6087 was modeled after. Andy On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > Hi Benoit, et al., > > > > As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I > know that Lou

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

Hi Alex, > (Resending, apologies in case of duplicates) Resending? This is the first time I'm seeing these. Did you send them when the Last Call was open before? The Last Call closed a couple weeks ago ;) I don't want to reopen rfc6087bis for anything less than Errata at this point (or

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Intuitively, BCP seems the right choice to me. Also, I think it is fine to issue an RFC now even if it is clear it will need updating later. IETF really needs to get better at releasing documents faster, it’s not as if there is a shortage of integers and potential churn is at this point less

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi Benoit, et al., As a contributor, I support your proposal to move rfc6087bis to BCP, and I know that Lou does as well (I just asked him). As co-chair, reading Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026, I feel that we need to formally run the decision past the WG. So, without further ado: This is the

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP?

Hi Kent, Hi Benoit, BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability metric that applies to BCPs. The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.