Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread William Lupton
Ideally I’d like a stronger guarantee than that, e.g that all YANG modules in WG-adopted IDs MUST have revision dates that reflect the most recent change to that YANG (*). The key point is that other SDOs (such as BBF!) will often develop YANG modules that (during the development phase) depend o

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread Randy Presuhn
Hi - I read the text as intended to make a distinction between the *date* portion and the rest of the revision statement. When a module is under development, retaining a history of specific incremental changes isn't terribly helpful, but changing the date is essential to helping tools d

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread William Lupton
Thanks. e.g rather than i.e sounds good, BUT my point (sorry if that wasn’t clear) is that this sentence seems to be contradictory. It says: Unpublished versions, i.e IDs, can reuse revision statements. IDs MUST update their revision dates each time they are re-posted. My suggestion of removing t

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread Kent Watsen
I think the issue is at the end of the sentence, my proposal: - the Internet-Draft is re-posted. + the work is published (e.g., it becomes an RFC). That said, for IETF drafts (not other SDOs), my understanding is that the revision statement’s date value SHOULD be the date that the I-D i

Re: [netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread Randy Presuhn
Hi - The situation with Internet-Drafts is what motivated this text in the first place, so I think it is important to retain that information. However, it seems to me that the "i.e." is too limiting, and should be replaced with an "e.g.". Randy On 8/11/2016 2:06 AM, William Lupton wrote: A

[netmod] RFC 6087bis guidance re use of revision statements in drafts

2016-08-11 Thread William Lupton
All, The text at the bottom of RFC 6087bis (draft 07) Section 5.8 seems unclear: "It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-posted” Assumi

Re: [netmod] OpsState and Schema-Mount

2016-08-11 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
> On 10 Aug 2016, at 23:54, Alex Campbell wrote: > > I think in this case it would make sense to implement both the hypothetical > standard module's state data (which would be device-agnostic, such as a > boolean value indicating whether each configured rule is active) and also a > device-spe