On 1/23/18 3:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi, > > So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the > WG? > > I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on > this issue. > > For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets > delayed, I strongly object to this decision. I don't think it does. assuming we had a draft that addresses that problem. we could poll for working group adoption now. and proceed with that one accordingly. what happens there is orthogonal to sending this one on it's way. > Assuming this document now moves forward as-is, can we assume that we > can start to work on the bis document immediately? What is needed? > > 1. a new individual draft > 2. some time until this becomes WG draft call for adoption can occur once we have a draft. > 3. some time before WGLC > > Do we have to go through all these steps? there's roughly three weeks of more or less required process time between submission to a working group and the close of WGLC, everything else is compressible to various degrees if we can satisfy our standards for consensus, and we don't spend to much time orbiting the same point. > This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document, > right? And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated. > > Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document to > the IESG at the same time ;-) If you hurry. the first one has taken a bit over 2 years to this point, I certainly think we can reel that in. > > /martin > > > Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: >> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on >> Nov 6th. >> >> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address >> unless significant faults are found. Post LC comments have been made, which >> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and >> an alternate representation of inline schema. These have been considered >> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of >> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at >> this time. >> >> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution proposed in >> this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable to add an >> applicability statement to the draft that covers its operation in NMDA >> implementations. We do not believe that such a statement substantively >> alters the draft nor would it impact drafts that normatively reference the >> current draft. >> >> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also agree with >> the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should allow the use >> of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state), thereby enabling the >> draft's use (though not ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis. >> >> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this >> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and >> advancement. >> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html >> >> Thanks, >> Kent, Lou, and Joel >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
