On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 09:35 -0500, joel jaeggli wrote: > > On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> writes: > > > > > 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. > > > > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to > > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of > > *both* document authors? > > Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working > group's document. > > The consensus call was made back here: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html
Ongoing threads are mentioned here, and they have to be resolved. > > To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights > the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed. What would be fatally flawed are two different versions of schema mount. > To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed, > clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should > proceed with an update in a timely fashion. > > IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem > discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who > depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this > judgement call where the working group participants stand today. An author objecting against his own document in the IETF LC - this sounds pretty crazy. If possible, I'd prefer to find consensus within the WG. Lada > > > > 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], > > > > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody > > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more > > than hand-waving. > > > > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even > > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something. > > > > Lada > > > > > 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 > > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
