[email protected] wrote:
> 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.
That seems reasonable at first thought.
> 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:
I find this less reasonable.
We publish many things as experimental, sometimes we do it well.
ECN comes to mind as something we did well.
Why wouldn't there is a management model associated with ECN?
For TCP senders/receivers, but also for routers.
The problem is that sometimes we use Experimental to say, "not yet baked to
PS level", and really the fault isn't with Experimental, but with the "grade
inflation" that surrounds PS. There are efforts to make Experimental more
precise.
Ultimately, I think that publishing YANG modules as RFCs it the mistake.
> 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".
That works for me.
I might have just said "experimental-foobar", and ommited the IETF entirely.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
