Hi,

I suggest changing the wording for A and adding D:

   7.  Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure
       A.  Scope is limited to providing a general model-structure only
       B.  Multiple domain-specific trees are okay
       C.  Multiple namespaces are okay
       D.  The model-structure may be used or extended by other organizations.

Justifications for (A):
- Limiting the scope to IETF-defined modules almost implies that 'ietf' would end up in the path (which would be wrong/unnecessary). - Clients don't care which SDO defines the modules for the protocols they use, they just want a coherent organization of modules. - General structure only to limit the scope because trying to precisely place every protocol/feature is likely to be fragile in the face of future changes.

Justifications for (D):
- To suggest and encourage other SDOs to use the same structure, but cannot mandate what they do.

Thanks,
Rob


On 18/09/2015 22:56, Kent Watsen wrote:
Regarding https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues/7


   Jonathan> Why does 7(A) limit the scope to IETF-defined modules of
             others are now defining YANG modules?

   Benoit> Good point. We need to provide guidance for the other SDOs.


Current text says:

    7.  Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure
        A.  Scope is limited to IETF-defined modules
        B.  Multiple domain-specific trees are okay
        C.  Multiple namespaces are okay



Background:

   I pulled 7A from Andy's message here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/I6clHE2665C40taRZHi0CKLD46U

   and put a stake in the ground so that, if nothing else, it could
   be discussed...and here we are!

   FWIW, I wrote 7A this way because I didn't see how it can be
   enforced outside of the IETF.  But maybe that doesn't matter?
   Of course, we can have 6087bis guidance for other SDOs, but
   I didn't put that in the text.


Thoughts on how the text should be updated?


PS: Please Reply-All to the list rather than post comments to the GitHub
issue tracker.


Thanks,
Kent

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to