Kent Watsen píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 14:52 +0000: > 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 modules contained therein have different names and namespaces, so there is no formal ancestry. I would prefer to keep the modules from RFC 8022 as they are - some weirdos may still want to use them. > > 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 MIB2 and only after a couple years of misuse did they republish the > legacy MIBs with deprecated status. > > I'm okay with this change being made after adoption, so long as there's > general agreement to do it. Are the authors okay with it, or are there any > better suggestions? > > PS: Sadly, the 'module' statement does not have 'status' as a substatement [I > just added this omission to the yang-next tracker]. I think the only way to > "deprecate a module" is to instead deprecate the all the > nodes/rpcs/notifications in the module. Kind of ugly, but it's for a > deprecated module, so who care, right? ;) I think it is unnecessary. If somebody needs adding such a module to the data model, he/she should probably have a reason to do so, such as data implemented on the server. Lada > > Kent > > > -- > > Hi Rob, > > On 9/14/2017 9:37 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > 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 presumably that could be > > solved after the draft has been adopted? > > I see an update for the third was published yesterday > (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-02) that > clarifies the intent is to replace the current modules, and presumably > obsolete 8022. And now that this intended direction is clear in the > draft we could poll it. > > I think this still doesn't address if we need to indicate that the > rfc8022 defined modules are deprecated by some other mechanisms than > just replacing the RFC, e.g., by updating the old modules with all nodes > marked as deprecated. I think you're right that this could be done post > adoption. Of course others are free to disagree. > > I check with Kent and see what he thinks. > > Thanks, > Lou > > > > > Thanks, > > Rob > > > > > > On 30/08/2017 00:46, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > 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. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bjorklund-netmod-rfc7277bis-00 > > > 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-00 > > > > > > Please take a look (comments welcome!) and stay tuned for the related > > > adoption calls. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Kent (and Lou) > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
