; '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
...@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
...@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
> >
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo