From: Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> Sent: 04 June 2025 09:00
Hi Med and netmod WG, I see a YANG module as adjunct to the feature that it enables operations and management for. My view comes mostly from the routing and routing protocols space. I realize that at various other levels of abstractions and types of models, the views would be different. Coming back to the application of YANG models for routing, I believe it should follow the status of the feature. I am assuming that the IETF strongly wants to encourage development of YANG modules to happen adjunct (and preferably in the same document?) as the rest of the protocol spec. I view this debate about standards/experimental/information more as a distraction from the main purpose of this document (draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis) - which is guidelines for writing/reviewing YANG modules (in the IETF?). <tp> I like the question mark; I think it underlies a number of the comments that have been made. My exposure is mostly within the IETF but the comments I see on IETF mailing lists give me the sense that the YANG module has gained widespread traction in other spheres and so what the IETF does with the language, such as this I-D, needs to respect that in order for the IETF itself to be respected. We may have made YANG but now it is bigger than us and so in some sense we no longer own it and cannot control it. This I-D is 'Guidelines', a chance for us to make our case, but we need to take others with us. Tom Petch There will continue to be debates about the correct track of both the protocol specs and their corresponding YANG modules. There is a great deal of subjectivity and decisions are made by the WGs, ADs, IESG on a case by case basis. Let it be so. I also want to try and impress that Experimental specs are all not some weird stuff being produced (though opinions vary widely from case to case basis). There are enough experiments (and even things in informational documents) that have gone on to gain mainstream industry relevance. How about this document steers clear of that debate and instead focuses on the modules themselves? How about we just say for all of the IETF stream documents? That will address my concerns. Regarding a prefix of "exp-ietf" for experimental. That would be changing what is in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6020#section-14 which allows for "ieft-" for all of the IETF stream tracks. I would suggest starting that as a separate conversation outside of this current document. Thanks, Ketan On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:04 PM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi all, (restricting the discussion to netmod, for now). I don't think that it makes sense to publish a normative YANG module in an Informational RFC. Whether we care about interoperability or not. If we care, and a normative YANG module is provided, publishing as Informational should not be an option. I'm also not comfortable claiming that we can publish a "normative" YANG as experimental (whatsoever that means), at least without cautions. Beyond YANG, publishing as Exp has a meaning and implications (including process-wise). For example, RFC2026 says: The "Experimental" designation typically denotes a specification that is part of some research or development effort. Such a specification is published for the general information of the Internet technical community and as an archival record of the work, subject only to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ editorial considerations and to verification that there has been ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ adequate coordination with the standards process (see below). An Experimental specification may be the output of an organized Internet research effort (e.g., a Research Group of the IRTF), an IETF Working Group, or it may be an individual contribution. Of course, the guidance in 8407bis can be followed by authors for such document, if they wish so. However, I don't think we need to have strong expectations on that. For example, * an experiment may have its own cycles and should not be subject, for example, to the lifecycle constraints we impose for deprecating/obsoleting/etc. * a module in an exp spec may not need to be registered within IANA as an experiment is in a limited domain and does not involve multiple implementations. * an experiment may be precisely about testing things that are not compliant with guidance Another dimension is that publishing as Exp require adequate justification why we can't publish as PS. For the specific case of YANG, the status of the underlying technology should not be the only criteria here as we are dealing with the interop between two peers independent of the objects they manipulates. At least from where I sit, a normative module can be defined as PS even if the underlying technology was Info (e.g., RFC9105). Things may get complicated with the augmentations and leaking outside the IETF. I think I would prefer making this change: OLD: All normative YANG modules published by the IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-". NEW: All normative YANG modules published in Standards Track documents by the IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf-". YANG modules published in Experimental documents by the IETF MUST begin with the prefix "exp-ietf". (I prefer exp-ietf to ietf-exp) Please share your thoughts and suggestions. Cheers, Med (as contributor) > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Mahesh Jethanandani > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 07:10 > À : Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc : The IESG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; draft-ietf-netmod- > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; NETMOD WG Chairs > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; > NETMOD Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kent Watsen > <[email protected]<mailto:kent%[email protected]>> > Objet : Re: [netmod] Ketan Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf- > netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > I am jumping into the middle of a discussion, but I do agree that > some of the questions raised by Ketan merit a debate. > > > On Jun 2, 2025, at 11:03 PM, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: Discuss > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to > all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to > cut > > this introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thanks to the authors and the WG for your work on this important > document. > > > > I have one high-level point that I would like to discuss with the > > authors and the WG since is it not clear - this is regarding > > experimental and information track YANG module documents in IETF > stream. > > > > At a high-level, I would like to discuss and understand whether > YANG > > model documents can be experimental or informational. I think the > > answer is YES? But this is not clear. A follow-on question: what > is > > the guidance for YANG models specified in standards track > document > > being augmented by modules in experimental or informational track > > document? I think the answer is NO? But again, this is not clear. > > As far as I understand, an experimental draft can define a protocol > normatively using key words from RFC 2119. Similarly, a YANG module > should be allowed to be normatively defined in a experimental > draft. > > What I am not clear on is the follow-on question. Are you asking if > a YANG module in an experimental draft can augment a YANG module in > a PS? My take is that, it should be allowed. > > > > > Please also see in the comments sections for some concerns that > are > > related to this topic - those are provided inline for better > context. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
