Hi Kent,
Hi Benoit,
BCP seems right, but I wonder if there is some sort of stability
metric that applies to BCPs.
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community deliberations.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-5
YANG still seems to be evolving, so I can only imagine yet another
update to this document
in the not too distant future. Does that disqualify it in any way?
I don't think so. Implicitly, this says:
The BCP subseries of the RFC series is designed to be a way to
standardize practices and the results of community_current _deliberations.
If the YANG use and knowledge spread, this document will evolve in the
future.
The problem to be solved, which I faced: "RFC6087 is informational (as
opposed to BCP), so I don't feel like I should follow it"
Regards, Benoit
Kent
On 9/11/17, 10:16 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"
<netmod-boun...@ietf.org <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of
bcla...@cisco.com <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Dear all,
I'm wondering if it's not time to classify
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis as a BCP, as opposed to informational
This text would need to change:
This document is similar to the Structure of Management
Information
version 2 (SMIv2) usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent
and structure. However, since that document was written a decade
after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was published as a 'Best
Current Practice' (BCP). This document is not a BCP, but rather an
informational reference, intended to promote consistency in documents
containing YANG modules.
Indeed, it seems to me that the consistency in YANG modules is a
pretty important topic.
Feedback?
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
