Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Hi Randy, On 02/10/2017 17:37, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - On 10/2/2017 7:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Hi - On 10/2/2017 7:18 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC 2119 terms. Thus it's clear that their usage is not

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

This discussion may be conflating two issues: (i) Does RFC text have to use RFC2119 terms to be normative? RFC 8174 categorically states that text can still be normative without using RFC 2119 terms. (ii) Should standards track documents use RFC 2119 terms? If 93% of recently published

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Juerge, Understood.  I think you made this clear in our previous discussion on this topic, even though ~93% of the RFCs published in the last 5 years use it.   We certainly can discuss this with our AD, and if there's sufficient interest in the WG even discuss it in Singapore. If others are

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Lou, the conclusion is that we add RFC 2119 here and there but I disagree with the notion that normative text needs RFC 2119 language, i.e., that text that does not use RFC 2119 language is not normative. See the pointers to the RFCs that I have provided. Now you want to make this even a rule for

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Benoit, I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We certainly can add this sentence as well. Lou On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise wrote: Dear all, To

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Dear all, To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it.     "This appendix is normative | informative" No need to debate for hours on this. Regards, Benoit - Original Message - From: "Lou Berger" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM,

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Hi Tom.     A few observations: On 9/15/2017 12:28 PM, t.petch wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Lou Berger" > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM > >> On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: >>> Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative.

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Andy Bierman writes: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > >> >> >> On 15/09/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? >> >> My personal preference for the routing

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

> A new module name mandates a new namespace, so they go together. > Abandoning the old module is fine, except leaving that module with > status "current" is not fine. IMO you need to republish the old module > as well, with everything status obsolete. Agreed. If a new module-name is used

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 15/09/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: > > Hi, > > So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? > > My personal preference for the routing modules would be to keep the same > module name and

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

- Original Message - From: "Lou Berger" Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM > On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: > > Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative. The > > default is that they are not so say that they are and they are. This is

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 15/09/2017 16:23, Andy Bierman wrote: Hi, So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? My personal preference for the routing modules would be to keep the same module name and deprecate the old nodes. However, I doubt that there are many implementations of this 8022

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, So are you saying the NMDA transition strategy should be ignored? What is the problem with deprecated nodes? Why aren't you following your own transition strategy? Andy On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 15/09/2017 15:52, Acee Lindem (acee)

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 15/09/2017 15:52, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: Hi, With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way to achieve this. Can we not

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, With respect to WG adoption, we will do whatever the WG decides for the RFC 8022 model. We have a strong preference toward not carrying the deprecated nodes forward and new module versions appears to be a good way to achieve this. I agree with Lada that deprecating all the schema nodes is

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 01:06:28PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > > Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track > RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative. > I very doubt this is true. But then, I have seen so many different interpretations of RFC 2119 language

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: > Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative. The > default is that they are not so say that they are and they are. This is > well established practice. Hi Tom,     My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or defined

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Rob, On 9/14/17, 9:37 AM, "netmod on behalf of Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" wrote: >Hi Kent & Lou, > >When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process >on these drafts? > >I think that

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

> So rfc8022bis-02 publishes the v2 module, and the the deprecated version > of the v1 module as an appendix? Lou and I were just discussing if appendix can be normative or not. I always thought no, but I haven't checked. This is a grey area, in that understanding that the old module is

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 14/09/2017 15:52, Kent Watsen wrote: rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module, but does it actually say it? (I can't find it) The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to have a meaningful impact in the wild. I think

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

rfc8022bis-02 signals the intent to ditch the current/soon-to-be-legacy module, but does it actually say it? (I can't find it) The draft does say that it obsoletes 8022, but I'm unsure if that's going to have a meaningful impact in the wild. I think Juergen said they had this issue with

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Kent & Lou, When do you think that it will be possible to start the adoption process on these drafts? I think that the first two at least would seem to be ready for adoption.  For the 3rd draft, there still seems to be an open question of what to do with the old state tree, but

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, There are many YANG guidelines that are for promoting a consistent structure for all IETF modules. YANG is just more source code. Each organization can have different coding guidelines, yet they can all use the same compiler. I should explain the use-case for identifying NMDA vs.

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Pulling out this particular question to see if others have an opinion on this. Should we change 6087bis to reduce it reliance on RFC 2119 language? The reasoning for proposing this change is to avoid accidentally creating future CLRs, because tool implementations might regard the RFC 2119

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 02:41:43PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 08/09/2017 13:38, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:19:03PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > In the same vane, I think that you could regard RFC 6087 and 6087bis as > > > one > > > long list of

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton píše v Pá 08. 09. 2017 v 14:41 +0100: > > > On 08/09/2017 13:38, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:19:03PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > In the same vane, I think that you could regard RFC 6087 and 6087bis as > > > one > > > long list of CLRs ... > > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 08/09/2017 13:38, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:19:03PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: In the same vane, I think that you could regard RFC 6087 and 6087bis as one long list of CLRs ... No. There are guidelines that have a clear technical reason. An example:

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 01:19:03PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > In the same vane, I think that you could regard RFC 6087 and 6087bis as one > long list of CLRs ... > No. There are guidelines that have a clear technical reason. An example: The 'preceding-sibling' and 'following-sibling'

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 11:17:10AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > On 07/09/2017 22:23, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 11:17:10AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 22:23, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to > > > add semantics to certain

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 07/09/2017 22:23, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned. But this is a really bad idea (and

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 10:51:54AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to > add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned. > > But this is a really bad idea (and slippery slope). I agree. /js -- Juergen

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, I suggested the naming guideline because the NMDA design team decided to add semantics to certain naming patterns, so authors have to be warned. But this is a really bad idea (and slippery slope). First we tell everybody "these are just identifiers, pick any string you want", then we want to

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 11:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton wrote: > >> > >> On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Robert Wilton wrote: > On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > >

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 07/09/2017 11:15, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 07/09/2017 11:05, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Robert Wilton wrote: On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > > wrote: > > > > > > > > >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On 07/09/2017 03:36, Andy Bierman wrote: On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen > wrote: >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. 

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > >> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general > >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates. Particularly, > >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

>> /netconf-state and /restconf-state don't seem to follow the general >> pattern we're correcting with the various NMDA updates.  Particularly, >> these -state trees are NOT for the purpose to providing the opstate >> value for configured nodes.  These modules have the misfortune of >> having

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Kent Watsen wrote: > >> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a > config=true > >> node > >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it. This seems quite > >> disruptive > >> and not a productive use of

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

>> I guess the NMDA transition plan to move the child nodes to a config=true >> node >> name /restconf that has only config=false nodes in it. This seems quite >> disruptive >> and not a productive use of engineering resources, or support and customer >> re-training. > > I agree with you. We've

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Andy Bierman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > > Benoit Claise wrote: > > > Kent, > > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing > > > > RFCs to

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Benoit Claise wrote: > > Kent, > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing > > > RFCs to align them with NMDA. The first batch have been

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Benoit Claise wrote: > Kent, > > Hey folks, > > > > As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing > > RFCs to align them with NMDA. The first batch have been published as > > individual drafts: > > > > 1.

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

"Acee Lindem (acee)" wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 8/30/17, 6:28 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >Kent Watsen wrote: > >> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00 > > > >I found some trivial errors in this

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi Martin, On 8/30/17, 6:28 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote: >Hi, > >Kent Watsen wrote: >> 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00 > >I found some trivial errors in this draft: > > o The revision for ietf-routing doesn't match the

Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hi, Kent Watsen wrote: > 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00 I found some trivial errors in this draft: o The revision for ietf-routing doesn't match the filename's date. o The filename for ietf-ipv6-router-advertisements is wrong (last

[netmod] upcoming adoptions

Hey folks, As discussed at the last meeting, we are heading to revising existing RFCs to align them with NMDA. The first batch have been published as individual drafts: 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7223bis-00 2.