Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Benoit Claise]

Dear all,

I believe BCP is correct for the tree diagram document.
Exactly as this is the right status for RFC6087bis, as discussed on the 
list.


Regards, Benoit.

I think the rules and recommendations in this document should be used, once
agreed and published, by all YANG module drafts within and outside of IETF.
As such its content is BCP.
IETF consensus will be achieved during IETF LC.

Cheers,
Mehmet


-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 2:07 AM
To: 'Kent Watsen' <kwat...@juniper.net>; 'Lou Berger' <lber...@labn.net>;
netmod@ietf.org; 'Benoit Claise' <bcla...@cisco.com>; 'Juergen
Schoenwaelder' <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

Kent:

A common way to express tree-diagrams in Yang documents provides a
common and clear to describe the models.  This would be really helpful to
those using these yang models.  Seems like a standard or a BCP to me.

Sue Hares


-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
To: Lou Berger; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document


BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application
of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".

Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does

not

represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be
cause for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG
(NETMOD) and therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus,
but I'm willing to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational

RFCs are

published by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken

literally.

Perhaps we should file Errata against it?

Kent // co-chair


= original message =

Hi Juergen,

 Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on all

the

factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite right for

this

document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either.  I do

think

BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This said, I think it would be

good to

hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if they

agree/disagree

with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

Lou,

right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
should leave as is."?

/js

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:

Martin,
I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.

I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is
right before publication in any case.

Lou (as contributor)

On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Hi,

Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
imply that other standards track documents will have the tree
diagram document as an informative reference.

Should we make this change?


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-

3A__www.ietf.org_ma
ilman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
ndb3voD
TXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpv
oumTA

-

4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byE
sko

noVDeyYcQE=


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-

3A__www.ietf.org_mai

lman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-

ndb3voDTX
cWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvou
mTA-4y
jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsk
onoVD

eyYcQE=



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

.



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Mehmet Ersue]

I think the rules and recommendations in this document should be used, once
agreed and published, by all YANG module drafts within and outside of IETF.
As such its content is BCP.
IETF consensus will be achieved during IETF LC.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 2:07 AM
> To: 'Kent Watsen' <kwat...@juniper.net>; 'Lou Berger' <lber...@labn.net>;
> netmod@ietf.org; 'Benoit Claise' <bcla...@cisco.com>; 'Juergen
> Schoenwaelder' <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
> 
> Kent:
> 
> A common way to express tree-diagrams in Yang documents provides a
> common and clear to describe the models.  This would be really helpful to
> those using these yang models.  Seems like a standard or a BCP to me.
> 
> Sue Hares
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
> To: Lou Berger; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise; Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document
> 
> 
> BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application
> of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
> "practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".
> 
> Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does
not
> represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be
> cause for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG
> (NETMOD) and therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus,
> but I'm willing to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational
RFCs are
> published by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken
literally.
> Perhaps we should file Errata against it?
> 
> Kent // co-chair
> 
> 
> = original message =
> 
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.
> 
> Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on all
the
> factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite right for
this
> document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either.  I do
think
> BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This said, I think it would be
good to
> hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if they
agree/disagree
> with publishing as a BCP.
> 
> Kent, Benoit?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Lou,
> >
> > right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
> > move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
> > should leave as is."?
> >
> > /js
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> Martin,
> >>I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
> >>
> >> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is
> >> right before publication in any case.
> >>
> >> Lou (as contributor)
> >>
> >> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> >>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> >>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> >>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree
> >>> diagram document as an informative reference.
> >>>
> >>> Should we make this change?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /martin
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> netmod mailing list
> >>> netmod@ietf.org
> >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_ma
> >>>
> ilman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voD
> >>>
> TXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpv
> oumTA
> >>> -
> 4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byE
> sko
> >>> noVDeyYcQE=
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> netmod@ietf.org
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mai
> >> lman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTX
> >>
> cWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvou
> mTA-4y
> >>
> jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsk
> onoVD
> >> eyYcQE=
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Susan Hares]

Kent:

A common way to express tree-diagrams in Yang documents provides a common
and clear to describe the models.  This would be really helpful to those
using these yang models.  Seems like a standard or a BCP to me.  

Sue Hares 
 

-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 7:06 PM
To: Lou Berger; netmod@ietf.org; Benoit Claise; Juergen Schoenwaelder
Subject: Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document


BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application
of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".

Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does not
represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be cause
for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG (NETMOD) and
therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus, but I'm willing
to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational RFCs are published
by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken literally.
Perhaps we should file Errata against it?

Kent // co-chair


= original message =

Hi Juergen,

Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on all
the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite right for
this document, but I also think informational isn't quite right either.  I
do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This said, I think it
would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and Benoit (as AD) if
they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to 
> move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We 
> should leave as is."?
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Martin,
>>  I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
>>
>> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is 
>> right before publication in any case.
>>
>> Lou (as contributor)
>>
>> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status 
>>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it 
>>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then 
>>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree 
>>> diagram document as an informative reference.
>>>
>>> Should we make this change?
>>>
>>>
>>> /martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_ma
>>> ilman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voD
>>> TXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA
>>> -4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEsko
>>> noVDeyYcQE=
>>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mai
>> lman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTX
>> cWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA-4y
>> jD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVD
>> eyYcQE=



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Lou Berger]

Umm, bcp covers process and consensus agreement while informational 
typically does not*.  I also don't see how 6087bis would be a more suited 
to be a bcp than this document.


Lou


On December 7, 2017 7:06:35 PM Kent Watsen  wrote:



BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application 
of that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a 
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".


Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does 
not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be 
cause for objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG 
(NETMOD) and therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus, but 
I'm willing to gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational RFCs 
are published by WGs, which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken 
literally.  Perhaps we should file Errata against it?


Kent // co-chair


= original message =

Hi Juergen,

Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on
all the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite
right for this document, but I also think informational isn't quite
right either.  I do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This
said, I think it would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and
Benoit (as AD) if they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

Lou,

right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
should leave as is."?

/js

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:

Martin,
I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.

I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right
before publication in any case.

Lou (as contributor)

On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Hi,

Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
document as an informative reference.

Should we make this change?


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE=


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE=







___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Kent Watsen]

BCP for tree-diagrams?   This doesn't seem like an appropriate application of 
that designation.  I don't view the format for tree diagrams to be a 
"practice", whereas it definitely seems "informational".

Looking more deeply at RFC2026, I can see how Section's 4.2.2's "...does not 
represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation" could be cause for 
objection, since this draft is obviously going through a WG (NETMOD) and 
therefore does, in fact, represent some form of consensus, but I'm willing to 
gloss over that line as, clearly, many Informational RFCs are published by WGs, 
which wouldn't be possible if that line were taken literally.  Perhaps we 
should file Errata against it?

Kent // co-chair


= original message =

Hi Juergen,

Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on
all the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite
right for this document, but I also think informational isn't quite
right either.  I do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This
said, I think it would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and
Benoit (as AD) if they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
> move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
> should leave as is."?
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Martin,
>>  I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
>>
>> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right
>> before publication in any case.
>>
>> Lou (as contributor)
>>
>> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
>>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
>>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
>>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
>>> document as an informative reference.
>>>
>>> Should we make this change?
>>>
>>>
>>> /martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE=
>>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod=DwIDaQ=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo=3BCNpvoumTA-4yjD5n04CSFPUs2jLAlNoj5OIoOXDkU=Pi6G9uzvFRpUNkgaZa2tRR07sP7byEskonoVDeyYcQE=



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Lou Berger]

Hi Juergen,

    Sorry for the slow response, I missed this message.

Circling back to this discussion made me go revisit RFC2026.  Based on
all the factors/discussions I agree  that standards track isn't quite
right for this document, but I also think informational isn't quite
right either.  I do think BCP would as described in RFC2026 fits.  This
said, I think it would be good to hear from at least Kent (as Chair) and
Benoit (as AD) if they agree/disagree with publishing as a BCP.

Kent, Benoit?

Thanks,

Lou

On 11/17/2017 1:54 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Lou,
>
> right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
> move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
> should leave as is."?
>
> /js
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Martin,
>>  I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
>>
>> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right
>> before publication in any case.
>>
>> Lou (as contributor)
>>
>> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
>>> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
>>> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
>>> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
>>> document as an informative reference.
>>>
>>> Should we make this change?
>>>
>>>
>>> /martin
>>>
>>> ___
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

Lou,

right now, the document says standards track, Martin's proposal was to
move to informational. So how do I parse "I think you are correct.  We
should leave as is."?

/js

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:36:58AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>   I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.
> 
> I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right
> before publication in any case.
> 
> Lou (as contributor)
> 
> On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> > Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> > ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> > imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
> > document as an informative reference.
> > 
> > Should we make this change?
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > ___
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Lou Berger]

Martin,
I think you are correct.  We should leave as is.

I'm sure Kent/the document Shepherd makes sure whatever we do is right 
before publication in any case.


Lou (as contributor)

On 11/15/2017 8:58 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Hi,

Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
document as an informative reference.

Should we make this change?


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 02:18:43PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> > > Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> > > ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> > > imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
> > > document as an informative reference.
> > > 
> > > Should we make this change?
> > >
> > 
> > Makes sense to me. I could ask what you will do with the RFC 2119
> > language in the ID but hey I do not ask these questions anymore. ;-)
> 
> Hmm, there is no 2119 language in this draft, so it should be ok.
>

Good that I did not ask. :)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Ladislav Lhotka]

On Wed, 2017-11-15 at 14:08 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> > Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> > ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> > imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
> > document as an informative reference.
> > 
> > Should we make this change?
> > 
> 
> Makes sense to me. I could ask what you will do with the RFC 2119
> language in the ID but hey I do not ask these questions anymore. ;-)

+1

2119 terms should be replaced with plain words.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Martin Bjorklund]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> > Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> > ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> > imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
> > document as an informative reference.
> > 
> > Should we make this change?
> >
> 
> Makes sense to me. I could ask what you will do with the RFC 2119
> language in the ID but hey I do not ask these questions anymore. ;-)

Hmm, there is no 2119 language in this draft, so it should be ok.


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 01:58:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
> Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
> ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
> imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
> document as an informative reference.
> 
> Should we make this change?
>

Makes sense to me. I could ask what you will do with the RFC 2119
language in the ID but hey I do not ask these questions anymore. ;-)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

Currently, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has intended status
Standards Track.  I think I heard during the meeting today that it
ought to be Informational.  I think this makes sense.  It would then
imply that other standards track documents will have the tree diagram
document as an informative reference.

Should we make this change?


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod