On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 8:41 AM Benoit Claise <benoit.claise= [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Med, > > > On 6/4/2025 1:44 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Benoît, > > > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > > > I would prefer to avoid the splitting-hair type of discussion :-), but the > situation is that the 8407 has many statements based on the standards track > vs. else. For example, > > > > == > > > > *4 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4>**. YANG > Usage Guidelines* > > > > Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all > > syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950>]. > > > > … > > > > The following example URNs would be valid namespace statement values > > for Standards Track modules: > > > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-partial-lock > > > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-state > > > > urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf > > > > Note that a different URN prefix string SHOULD be used for modules > > that are not Standards Track. > > > > … > > == > > > > I believe the above text does the job. Why do we need to specify more than > the above? > If we do, we would be inventing rules here, like "exp-ietf" :-( > It's best too provide guidance only on Standards Tracks, while everybody > else can follow them if they want > > This discussion is not part of the scope we set for this bis, but Ketan > raised fair questions. > > > > I’m still interested to hear cases where you think that a “normative YANG” > module makes sense in an Info spec. > > Actually, I don't want to have to be thinking about all the different > corner cases and come up with rules here ;-) > Strongly agree with not adding special rules for experimental modules. The document has certainly expanded its scope since I started it. ;-) The YANG language has no concept of standards track. It does have a status field (current, deprecated, obsolete). The guidelines make a distinction between Published and Unpublished modules. The YANG language does not make this distinction. > I can guess that there will a good situation in the future for which we > don't want to write down the rules in stone now. > I just made up examples: > - what if I want a YANG module for NetFlow version 9 (RFC 3954) or Sflow > (RFC 3176), should this RFC be Informational? > - what about the syslog YANG module, RFC 9742 based on RFC 3164? We could > say that it must "Informational" because the normative reference RFC 3164 > is informational... euh wait RFC 3164 is not even in the references??? > > It doesn't matter in the end, that's my point. > What does matter to me is that we do NOT call the Sflow one "inf-sflow" > and that we don't have too rigid rules. > > There are no distinctions in the language or the guidelines between experimental and standards track YANG modules. (IMO keep it that way). The guidelines should be careful about prohibiting mixing of modules based on RFC classification. > I hope this helps. > > Regards, Benoit > > Andy > Thanks. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Benoit Claise <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 juin 2025 14:17 > *À :* Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; > BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > *Cc :* NETMOD Group <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Objet :* Re: [netmod] Re: YANG in EXP/INFO Documents (was RE: Ketan > Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and > COMMENT) > > > > > > Dear all, > > This discussion about YANG module in EXP/INFO seems to me as a > splitting-hair type of discussion. > Starting from the very first question: "At a high-level, I would like to > discuss and understand whether YANG model documents can be experimental or > informational." My answer: No, a YANG module just happens to be in a > PS/EXP/INFO document. Note: to find this related document, see > www.yangcatalog.org Let's not try to convey the subtle IETF differences > between PS/EXP/INFO into the YANG modules themselves. And having "exp-ietf" > is simply a bad idea. What if the experiment is successful, are we going to > re-publish as "ietf"? It doesn't make sense from an API point of view. > > From there, the augmentation questions "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?" are > irrelevant. > > Regards, Benoit > > On 6/4/2025 11:15 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: > > Hi Med, > > > > My individual preference (i.e., w/o my AD hat), would be to leave them > separate. That content seems more appropriate for a standards track > document and not this BCP. > > > > Thanks, > > Ketan > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 1:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Re-, > > > > 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. > > *[Med] FYI, we used to have updates to IANA cons in 6020 as part of the > 8407bis. These matters are covered now in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020-iana-update-01 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020-iana-update-01>. > Both will be synced if we conclude to go that path. * > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > *Envoyé :* mercredi 4 juin 2025 10:00 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> > *Cc :* Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]>; NETMOD Group < > [email protected]> > *Objet :* Re: YANG in EXP/INFO Documents (was RE: [netmod] Ketan > Talaulikar's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-25: (with DISCUSS and > COMMENT) > > > > 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?). > > > > 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]> 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]> > > Envoyé : mercredi 4 juin 2025 07:10 > > À : Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]> > > Cc : The IESG <[email protected]>; draft-ietf-netmod- > > [email protected]; NETMOD WG Chairs <[email protected]>; > > NETMOD Group <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[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]> 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. > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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] > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > 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] >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
