Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

I think that there might be a paragraph or two in the nmda-guidelines draft that could be used as source material, but by and large, I'm imagine new text being needed. If none of my co-authors step forward, I'll pen up some proposal text for Section 6.23 myself, but it may be awhile, with

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi, Do you have text from your that that should be pasted into section 6.23? I think there were other issues, such as changing the terminology to reference RD. There were comments opposing that idea because the definition for 'configuration' including everything that could possibly change the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi Andy, I confirmed with Lou and Benoit that we want 6.23 to have the normative text within it, as we're both unsure about if the nmda-guidelines draft will progress and also believe that the text could be written more helpfully for the 6087bis audience. Would it help if one of the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi, I rewrote 6.23 and it points at the NMDA guidelines. The drafts will get published together so the references will be to RFCs, not I-Ds. That is usually what is meant by the comment below I think > I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently. Agreed. Andy On

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > Guidelines for > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc. Ideally 6087bis can just state what people should do, without providing a formula for

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 4:32 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > > > Guidelines for > > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. > > I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc.

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi Tom, On 20/06/2017 12:39, t.petch wrote: --- Original Message - From: "Phil Shafer" To: "Andy Bierman" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:05 AM Andy Bierman writes: This draft addresses all remaining open issues, include the

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

--- Original Message - From: "Phil Shafer" To: "Andy Bierman" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 7:05 AM > Andy Bierman writes: > >This draft addresses all remaining open issues, include the rewrite of the > >opstate section. > > >>In

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Regarding the suggestion to add this text: > Guidelines for > moving existing data modules to the NMDA are defined in > [I-D.dsdt-nmda-guidelines]. I'm hoping that we do not progress the guidelines doc. Ideally 6087bis can just state what people should do, without providing a formula for

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

Hi, This draft addresses all remaining open issues, include the rewrite of the opstate section. I think it is ready for another quick WGLC and then back to the IESG. Andy On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 9:54 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-13.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents Author : Andy Bierman