Hi all, Rob, thanks for putting this together. We’ll take a look and share our feedback soon. Some of us are out until the new year, so expect a response in the first couple of weeks of January.
Thanks, Sabrina From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 1:50 PM To: Jason Sterne <[email protected]> Cc: Robert Wilton <[email protected]>, Sabrina Tanamal <[email protected]>, Amanda Baber <[email protected]>, NETMOD WG <[email protected]>, NETMOD Working Group <[email protected]>, Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]> Subject: [Ext] Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt Hi Jason, I agree with you that the primary audience for this document is IANA and RFC Editor. There is one question I had that applies to I-D authors for a -bis version of the document. See the inline highlighted text. If we can address that somewhere, it would help. Thanks. On Dec 17, 2025, at 6:24 AM, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Mahesh and all, While Rob’s email was partially about adoption, I think the main question we had was for the primary consumers/audience of the doc: Sabrina, Amanda and Sandy. Are they happy with the basic structure, level of detail (too much, too little)? Maybe try looking for the answer to a few of your scenarios/questions that comes up in IANA modules and see how easy it is to use the doc? (Of course opinions on that from other folks are welcome) We wanted to know that before we start refining the text (don’t want to have to then tear the document apart and re-org/re-structure it). Jason From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 1:36 AM To: Robert Wilton <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Sabrina Tanamal <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Amanda Baber <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; NETMOD WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; NETMOD Working Group <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Reshad Rehman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Sandy Ginoza <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext [nok.it]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/nok.it/ext__;!!PtGJab4!7gPZ8N3QTXAVc1gQ7oJEVDmeUVZ_kz_PBNuiLPR2uN2eX8wYNFHD1kekirJOKoIbPJ90xMfgN3Ig-7D-I-z77DYfqlm8qemGyg$> for additional information. [Adding Sandy Ginoza] Hi Rob, On Dec 16, 2025, at 9:32 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, One of the outcomes of the meeting between the folks doing YANG versioning and IANA was a request to have clearer long-term guidance for IANA's processing of YANG modules. In some of the feedback from Mahesh the suggestion was that this should also incorporate guidelines for the RFC Editor when processing YANG modules as well. Hence this document. At this stage, still document is still somewhat rough/early (but verbose because an LLM helped produce most of the initial text based on my guidance), and hasn't had that much review yet. So, I think that the key questions are whether this is the sort of information//guidance/format that you are looking for? Does the rough structure and level of detail seem right, or too much or too little? If we can please get some early feedback on whether this doc is on the right track or if we should be making some larger restructuring before the next version. My general comment with the current version of the draft is that already does a good job of capturing a lot of the guidance. I would be ok with adopting the draft, even as we work to update the draft. Take as an example, Section 5.2.2, Step 2, RFC Editor Processing. It calls for coordination with document authors on any "substanive changes". But there is no definition of what are “substantive changes”. Can that be articulated? Is it anything outside of the 4 bullet items listed in the section? The document refers to Section 4 to determine version numbering, but there is no use of the term “substantive changes” in that section. How should the RFC Editor manage the version number for both the “substantive changes” and non-“substantive changes”? Also, thanks for mentioning Appendix A.1.1. and that pyang can be used in determining BC or NBC changes. The document assumes publication of a new YANG module. How about a -bis version that is still an I-D? What version number should authors use? Mahesh, you mentioned that the RFC Editor would also be interested, who would be the best contact please, Alexis? I have added Sandy to the thread. She and I discussed the changes the three drafts will be bringing and she had a few questions. I will let her take a look at the current version of the draft and compare it to her notes to see what could be added to the draft. Thanks NETMOD chairs, I think that you mentioned adopting this directly. Let me know whether you think that this doc is ready to be adopted, or I should get a round of reviews first, or ... Just for the formal record: I’m not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Kind regards, Rob From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 16:42 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt A new version of Internet-Draft draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Robert Wilton and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance Revision: 00 Title: Guidance for Managing YANG Modules in RFCs and IANA Registries Date: 2025-12-16 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 40 URL: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.txt__;!!PtGJab4!7gPZ8N3QTXAVc1gQ7oJEVDmeUVZ_kz_PBNuiLPR2uN2eX8wYNFHD1kekirJOKoIbPJ90xMfgN3Ig-7D-I-z77DYfqll9yht7Cw$> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance/__;!!PtGJab4!7gPZ8N3QTXAVc1gQ7oJEVDmeUVZ_kz_PBNuiLPR2uN2eX8wYNFHD1kekirJOKoIbPJ90xMfgN3Ig-7D-I-z77DYfqll7pTWF_Q$> HTML: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.html [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance-00.html__;!!PtGJab4!7gPZ8N3QTXAVc1gQ7oJEVDmeUVZ_kz_PBNuiLPR2uN2eX8wYNFHD1kekirJOKoIbPJ90xMfgN3Ig-7D-I-z77DYfqllLYx0sZQ$> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-verdt-iana-yang-guidance__;!!PtGJab4!7gPZ8N3QTXAVc1gQ7oJEVDmeUVZ_kz_PBNuiLPR2uN2eX8wYNFHD1kekirJOKoIbPJ90xMfgN3Ig-7D-I-z77DYfqlnl1dAADQ$> Abstract: This document provides guidance to the RFC Editor and IANA on managing YANG modules in RFCs and IANA registries, ensuring consistent application of YANG Semantic Versioning rules. The IETF Secretariat Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
