Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06

[Alissa Cooper]

Francis, thanks for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Jan 23, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Francis Dupont  wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> .
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-??
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 2018-01-23
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-15
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25
> 
> Summary: Ready
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues: None
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: I'll send another message tomorrow with a few 
> comments.
> 
> 
> ___
> Gen-art mailing list
> gen-...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt

[t.petch]

Kent

My request for a reference for Posix hs been fixed in -19.

Tom Petch

- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:59 PM

> Clyde,
>
> This draft still isn't passing idnits.  I provided the link to idnits
previously, but here it is again: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits.
Below is the idnits output for -19 with inlined comments.
>
> PS: I didn't also checked the other issues we're tracking, but will
when we get past these idnits issues.
>
> Kent
>
>
> = START =
> idnits 2.15.00
>
> /tmp/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-19.txt:
>
>   Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
>   https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
>   

>
>  No issues found here.
>
>   Checking nits according to
https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
>   

>
>  No issues found here.
>
>   Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   

>
>   ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
>  being 1 character in excess of 72.
>
> Kent: this isn't a big deal IMO, but if it's easy to fix, it saves the
RFC editor a step later on.
>
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>   

>
>   == Line 352 has weird spacing: '...gorithmide...'
>
> Kent: this is fine.  it is in a tree diagram.
>
>
>   == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate,
even if
>  it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a
paragraph with
>  a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
>
>  (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which
the
>  ID-Checklist requires).
>
> Kent: I can't find the error.  Looking at the xml, it is verbatim what
I have in the zerotouch draft.  my guess is that this is a tooling error
and we should ignore it.
>
>
>   -- The document date (January 12, 2018) is 4 days in the past.  Is
this
>  intentional?
>
> Kent: this is fine, it is intentional.
>
>
>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>   

>
>  (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
>  to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>   == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-keystore' is defined on line
1386,
>  but no explicit reference was found in the text
>
> Kent: looking at the XML, I see that the entire paragraph uses '[' and
']' as opposed to .  Please fix this.
>
>
>   == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1456, but no
explicit
>  reference was found in the text
>
> Kent: looking at the XML, I see two instances of an unwanted "/"
string.  For instance: /  Please fix this.
>
>
>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
>
> Kent: hmmm, what's going on here?  This YANG module is providing an
ability to configure the "tcp" transport, even though the IESG made that
ability historic in 2012 (see IESG Note below).  Searching online, it
looks like Cisco supports this, but Juniper does not.  What about other
vendors, is it widely supported?  Was this discussed in the WG?
Answering my own question, searching my local mailbox, I don't see this
ever being discussed before, other than Martin questioning if it was a
good idea in Mar 2016 (no response).  Please start a thread on the list
to get WG opinion if it's okay for the draft to proceed as is or not.
Here's the IESG Note from RFC 6587:
>
>IESG Note
>
>The IESG does not recommend implementing or deploying syslog over
>plain tcp, which is described in this document, because it lacks
the
>ability to enable strong security [RFC3365].
>
>Implementation of the TLS transport [RFC5425] is recommended so
that
>appropriate security features are available to operators who want
to
>deploy secure syslog.  Similarly, those security features can be
>turned off for those who do not want them.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment
(--).
>
>  Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed
information about
>  the items above.
> = END =
>
> Thanks,
> Kent // shepherd
>
>
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Last Call: (YANG Tree Diagrams) to Best Current Practice

[The IESG]

The IESG has received a request from the Network Modeling WG (netmod) to
consider the following document: - 'YANG Tree Diagrams'
   as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-02-07. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module Tree
   Diagrams.  The purpose of the document is to provide a single
   location for this definition.  This syntax may be updated from time
   to time based on the evolution of the YANG language.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Suresh Krishnan's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis/



--
COMMENT:
--

* Lots of places in the document where NMDA is misspelled as NDMA. Please fix.

* Section 9.1.

The ranges for AdvDefaultLifetime and MaxRtrAdvInterval have been changed by
RFC-to-be-8319 to update the values specified in RFC4861.  Please change these
ranges to the new values.

OLD:

leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
   type uint16 {
 range "4..1800";
   }

NEW:

leaf max-rtr-adv-interval {
   type uint16 {
 range "4..65535";
   }

OLD:

 leaf default-lifetime {
   type uint16 {
 range "0..9000";
   }

NEW:
 leaf default-lifetime {
   type uint16 {
 range "0..65535";
   }


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Lou Berger]

On 01/23/2018 03:26 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
>> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
>> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
>> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
>> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
>> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
>> this time.
>>
> 
> If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
> Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
> again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
> alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
> technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
> g there...)

Focusing a moment on the future and the technical, it would be most
helpful to have a document that describes SM with NMDA and YL-bis.  This
would at least be a starting point for WG discussion.  It might even
help show if the current plan is flawed.

I, personally, suspect that a proposal that changes basic approach, or
revisits past arguments, will end up in another round of very long
discussions based on what each party thinks is optimal. Therefore, I
hope that the initial proposed solution would take a minimalistic change
approach in order to garner widest support.  This consensus foundation
could then provide a foundation for further optimization to the degree
supported by WG consensus.

Lou


> 
> /js
> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Lou Berger]

One additional point below.

n 01/24/2018 09:35 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kent Watsen  writes:
>>
>>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>>> Nov 6th.
>>>
>>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>>> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>>> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>>> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>>> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>>> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>>> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
>> I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
>> proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
>> *both* document authors?
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 

A document moving away from the original authors intent or even
agreement has happened before in the IETF.  I'm aware of several cases
of it *right now*, one in this group the others in different areas.  In
the case of this group, the original (lead) author choose to remove
themselves from the work and others in the WG took over the pen.  In the
other WGs, the original authors dropped the work and new authors took it
over.  In the case of the work that I initiated that this happened with,
I'm not sure if I'm listed or not as it's been so long since I looked at
the draft, but I know I'm no longer on the front page and the WG chair
appointed editor is a non-original author who I recommended.  So your
current position is not unique, nor counter to our process.

As a reminder, it is the responsibility of the document editors to
document WG consensus -- they have a lot of latitude in how they do
this, but in the end, WG consensus is what should be captured once an a
topic is discussed. It is also the WG chairs responsibility to ensure
that a document reflects WG consensus, this includes ensuring that the
document editors/authors follow consensus and appointing editors when
the authors need assistance in this.  An editor can be appointed if you
and Martin think this is necessary, but I think the preference of the
chairs is that we don't at this late date.

Lou


> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html
> 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.
> 
> IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
> discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
> depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
> judgement call where the working group participants stand today.
> 
>>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>>> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>>> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>>> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>>> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>>> that normatively reference the current draft.
>>>
>>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
>> Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
>> expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
>> than hand-waving.
>>
>> I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
>> more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>>
>> Lada
>>
>>> we also agree
>>> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>>> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>>> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>>> supporting rfc7895bis.
>>>
>>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
>>> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission 
>>> and advancement. 
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Ladislav Lhotka]

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 09:35 -0500, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Kent Watsen  writes:
> > 
> > > Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on
> > > Nov 6th.
> > > 
> > > Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> > > address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> > > been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> > > NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> > > These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> > > consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> > > advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> > 
> > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> > *both* document authors?
> 
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 
> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

Ongoing threads are mentioned here, and they have to be resolved.

> 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.

What would be fatally flawed are two different versions of schema mount.

> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.
> 
> IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
> discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
> depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
> judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

An author objecting against his own document in the IETF LC - this sounds pretty
crazy. If possible, I'd prefer to find consensus within the WG.

Lada

> 
> > > Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> > > proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> > > to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> > > operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> > > statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> > > that normatively reference the current draft.
> > > 
> > > In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> > 
> > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> > than hand-waving.
> > 
> > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > we also agree
> > > with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> > > allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> > > thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> > > supporting rfc7895bis.
> > > 
> > > The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this
> > > message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission
> > > and advancement. 
> > > 
> > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kent, Lou, and Joel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:35:49AM -0500, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 
> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

So then go ahead and resolve _all_ comments that were made during
WG last call.
 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.

I believe the YANG library alignment issue was raised earlier than
'new year' and actually during WG last call. Since the YANG library
interim (NETCONF WG) in December we have a clearer view on YANG
library. Anyway, I expect that all WG last call comments will be dealt
with - otherwise there is a process error.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[joel jaeggli]

On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kent Watsen  writes:
>
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> *both* document authors?
Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
group's document.

The consensus call was made back here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
proceed with an update in a timely fashion.

IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>> that normatively reference the current draft.
>>
>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> than hand-waving.
>
> I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>
> Lada
>
>> we also agree
>> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>> supporting rfc7895bis.
>>
>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
>> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
>> advancement. 
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Hi,

Kent Watsen  writes:

> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
> Nov 6th.
>
> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.

I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
*both* document authors?

>
> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> that normatively reference the current draft.
>
> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],

Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
than hand-waving.

I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.

Lada

> we also agree
> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> supporting rfc7895bis.
>
> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
> advancement. 
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>
> Thanks,
> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>
>
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Christian Hopps]

Great news.

Thanks,
Chris.

Kent Watsen  writes:

Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion 
of WGLC on Nov 6th.


Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments 
are address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC 
comments have been made, which needed consideration, notably the 
relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate 
representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the 
position of the chairs that it is best to advance the existing 
schema-mount document at this time.


Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution 
proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it 
reasonable to add an applicability statement to the draft that 
covers its operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe 
that such a statement substantively alters the draft nor would 
it impact drafts that normatively reference the current draft.


In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also 
agree with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft 
should allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference 
/modules-state), thereby enabling the draft's use (though not 
ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis.


The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned 
in this message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before 
final submission and advancement.


[1] 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html


Thanks,
Kent, Lou, and Joel



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>> 
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
>> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
>> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
>> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
>> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
>> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
>> this time.
>>
>
> If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
> Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
> again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
> alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
> technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
> g there...)

As a matter of fact, I proposed pretty much the same thing already back in
March 2017:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg18045.html

Lada

>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod