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

2017-12-08 Thread Benoit Claise
; '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 doc

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

2017-12-08 Thread Mehmet Ersue
...@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 the

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

2017-12-07 Thread Susan Hares
...@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

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

2017-12-07 Thread 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

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

2017-12-07 Thread 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

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

2017-12-07 Thread 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

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

2017-11-16 Thread 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

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

2017-11-16 Thread 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

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

2017-11-15 Thread 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 >

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

2017-11-15 Thread 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

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

2017-11-15 Thread 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 > >

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

2017-11-15 Thread 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

[netmod] intended status of the tree diagram document

2017-11-15 Thread 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