Thanks. The longer WG last call thread started with Rob's message in which he also asked about alignment with the YANG library update (posted November 2nd). So the document is in a limbo state since November 6th.
/js On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:58:15PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > It was WG Last Call’ed: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/csUvs6408En0yY-vapyU3IFcJqQ > > And it was closed: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gbXE4Le1I_3Y5oaNnpjYoZZZ4lw > > However, it may not have ever completed. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 1/22/18, 11:45 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > Acee, > > the documents that have already finished WG Last Call have a normative > reference on schema mount, which has not yet finished WG Last Call as > far as I recall. I think the RFC editor does not publish a document > with a missing normative reference. I continue to believe that the > time difference between doing the right thing and doing something > faster using definition we are in the process to deprecate is really > small. But of course, I may be entirely wrong. > > /js > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:18:15PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > Hi Lada, > > > > My primary concern is that the YANG Schema Mount delay will not only > hold the NI/LNE but all the models that are dependent on them (e.g., L2VPN > and L3VPN). This is for a document that has already finished WG Last Call. > Additionally, your estimate for the size of the change and time to reach > standardization is based on there being immediate consensus on the changes. > This is probably overly optimistic given there was discussion on the proposed > YANG Library BIS changes. I’d vote to publish the existing draft. > > > > In any case, being able to see the proposed changes ASAP is critical. > > > > Thanks, > > Acee > > > > On 1/22/18, 8:45 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" > <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 06:05:15PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote: > > >> > > >> Hence, for me, I see the choice as: > > >> 1) do we publish the existing model now (perhaps also mark the > draft as > > >> experimental) followed by an updated draft with the NMDA > compatible module? > > >> 2) do we publish both models in a single draft (e.g. with the > existing model > > >> in an appendix)? > > >> 3) do we only publish a single version of the draft with an NMDA > compliant > > >> solution. > > >> > > > > > > I think the situation is as follows (likely obvious but it may > help to > > > make sure we are all on the same page): > > > > > > - the NI and LNE models have a normative reference to > > > I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount (and this makes sense since there > are > > > MUST sentences in the I-D) > > > > > > - I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount (last updated in October) has > normative > > > references to RFC 7895 (old YANG library) > > > > > > - RFC 7895 does not work with NMDA, NMDA work on a YANG library > update > > > replacing RFC 7895 > > > > > > So the YANG library update is gating the schema mount update > which is > > > gating the publication of the NI and LNE models. > > > > > > A proper solution would be to prioritize work on the YANG library > > > update and the schema mount update. I assume that the next > revision of > > > the YANG library update (say end of January) is ready for WG last > call > > > and perhaps the schema mount authors can take an effort to get > that > > > document there as well, say beginning of February. > > > > I completely agree. > > > > Lada > > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > -- > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | > Germany > > > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 > <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
