Kent, Yes it would be good set a target date so it communicates to the industry the intent, allowing them to plan their migration. It also allows the industry to provide feedback regarding the migration period.
I wanted to reiterate Barts request for the hardware module to have state module in an Appendix. What you don't want is have the industry organizations that use the modules to create their own state modules - this will cause undue fragmentation that will harm the advancement of YANG. BR, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Kent Watsen [mailto:kwat...@juniper.net] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 2:03 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>; Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <bart.boga...@nokia.com> Cc: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05 All, Picking up on Juergen's comment: > If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm), > then it might be better to define them in a separate module... I agree that the objects should be defined in a separate module. The request, as I understand it, is for there be an "ietf-hardware-state" module defined in the Appendix of this draft. I believe that doing so is consistent with the NMDA guidelines: (b) Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. A non-NMDA version of these models SHOULD exist, either an existing model or a model created either by hand or with suitable tools that mirror the current modeling strategies. Both the NMDA and the non-NMDA modules SHOULD be published in the same document, with NMDA modules in the document main body and the non-NMDA modules in a non-normative appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations are available. Of course, we should ask, for how long is it that the IETF (SDOs in general) should publish these -state modules? During the discussion at the beginning of the first session in Singapore, I said something along the lines of "so long as there is market demand for it", which seems a bit too open-ended for my taste. I recommend that we set a date, perhaps a couple years out, after which we (the IETF) will no longer publish or maintain such foo-state modules. Thoughts? Kent // as co-chair ===== original message ====== Bart, I think the reason for the difference is that the interfaces model was published as an RFC before while the hardware model is new and hence it seems to look a bit odd to define new deprecated objects. If these deprecated objects are essential for BBF (please confirm), then it might be better to define them in a separate module that then can silently die while systems move to NMDA (and so we do not have the deprecated objects with us in the hardware module forever - or at least as long as we use YANG 1.1). /js On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 02:35:29PM +0000, Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) wrote: > Hello, > > The latest draft does not contain an appendix with the deprecated > state tree (to support the non-NMDA model as specified in RFC6087bis > section 4.23.3), so if it is published in this way, there is an issue > at the level of BBF TR-383. > > Note that the draft-ietfnetmod-rfc7223bis does include the deprecated > container interfaces-state. > > Best regards, > Bart Bogaert > > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:36 PM > To: NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org> > Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-cha...@ietf.org> > Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05 > > All, > > This starts a two-week working group last call on > draft-ietf-netmod-entity-05. > > The working group last call ends on December 13. > Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list. > > Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it > is ready for publication", are welcome! > This is useful and important, even from authors. > > Thank you, > Netmod Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > man_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcW > zoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=chLVKwaAcdC6Llko8 > SagGTdtaLVTMJRVuFxx-MbXvQU&s=1sxGcVU9OMbpjTMNke_r8CkLGnSnNhrwXl1aqAiqd > Is&e= > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail > man_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcW > zoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=chLVKwaAcdC6Llko8 > SagGTdtaLVTMJRVuFxx-MbXvQU&s=1sxGcVU9OMbpjTMNke_r8CkLGnSnNhrwXl1aqAiqd > Is&e= -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs-2Duniversity.de_&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=chLVKwaAcdC6Llko8SagGTdtaLVTMJRVuFxx-MbXvQU&s=4CB7bD5utyX6c4yAEyHZbp1h7nHrxFAQdrS2c-qll6M&e=> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=chLVKwaAcdC6Llko8SagGTdtaLVTMJRVuFxx-MbXvQU&s=1sxGcVU9OMbpjTMNke_r8CkLGnSnNhrwXl1aqAiqdIs&e= _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
