Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > I do not see what problems get solved by publishing an RFC for a YANG > module, without the YANG module.
It's just not *inline*
It's still included, by strong reference, not by value.
> It is important for people to distinguish work that is finished (RFC) vs.
> work-in-progess (I-D).
Agreed.
> The RFC is supposed to be stable and done, ready for use.
> This is not what is causing IETF YANG to be so slow to complete in WGs.
> The real problems start with a "kitchen sink" approach instead of an
> "Agile/MVP" approach.
True.
> We used to have Draft Standard and Full Standard. WGs would have to show
> adoption and interoperability to advance. Adoption and
> interoperaibility seem to have taken
> a back-seat to the process itself.
The line for PS RFC has been rising forever.
Today's PS is like a Draft Standard of yore.
Today's adopted -00 (by the time it is adopted) is often what a PS would have
been 30 years ago.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
