On 17/03/2017 14:32, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi,
Would 7950bis be allowed to have a normative reference to an Informational RFC
that defined the YANG datastores?
My idea is that 7950bis should be made independent of any particular set of
datastores, so such a normative reference shouldn't be needed.
OK, if 70590bis was entirely datastore agnostic, then there would need
to be a description of how YANG applies to a particular set of
datastores (in particular the config: true|false statement), and which
datastores are validated. Would that go in the revised datastores
architecture or somewhere else? It wouldn't make sense to have to
repeat this for every network configuration protocol.
Thanks,
Rob
Lada
If we did a 7950bis document (and it isn't clear that one is actually required
to support the revised datastores draft) then does that mean we would also need
to have a new version of YANG?
That would potentially seem like a backwards step. Also what would it mean for
an implementation that is aware of the new datastores but is using a mix of
YANG modules with different versions?
I don't understand why the revised datastores draft should not be standards
track once the various appendices have been moved out, noting that they are
really only in the one draft at this stage because it seemed like that would
make it easier for folks to review and comment on.
Is the only issue here which WG the draft is being worked on?
Thanks,
Rob
On 17/03/2017 13:22, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
I think YANG identities should be standardized with 7950bis.
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 12:28 PM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>;
Mehmet Ersue <mer...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Kent Watsen' <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
Juergen,
Thank you for the input. I think your point highlights how the technical
contents of a document drives the intended status of a document.
Lou
PS as a reminder to all, intended status of documents is *not* typically
included in charters and are not included in the distributed version.
On March 16, 2017 2:44:53 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:50:06PM +0100, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think the DS
concept document is Informational in nature and should be published as
an
Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in
diverse
protocol WGs. This is as I think also important to avoid an overlapping
between NETCONF and NETMOD charters.
The current datastore draft includes concrete YANG idenity definitions
for datastores and origins and these definitions better be standards
track.
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
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
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
