Subject: [netmod] comment on draft-bierman-netmod-yang-data-ext

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:59:08 -0500

Hi,

    I was looking at how yd:yang-data (this draft) relates to
rc:yang-data (rfc8040).  The document seems to imply that this draft's
extension is a replacement in one place (see abstract) , is supplemental
in another (sec 1, plus augment-yang-data example) and perhaps
orthogonal in a final (that rc:yang-data is still used/referenced at
all).  I think the document should be clear as to it's objective with
respect to  rc:yang-data. 

As rc:yang-data is currently defined in a protocol specific way, I (with
any/all hats) would prefer to see a definition of yang-data that would
work for any protocol that encodes and transports yang.  I also
generally think that having two definitions for basically the same
mechanism isn't beneficial to implementors of IETF RFCs, so this leads
me to suggest that if this document becomes a WG document it should
deprecate rc:yang-data.

Lou

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 10:53:13 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

> all).  I think the document should be clear as to it's objective with

Agreed.  It is intended to replace rc:yang-data.  I have fixed the
example that used rc:yang-data.  Do you think we need any changes to
section 1 to clarify this?

> me to suggest that if this document becomes a WG document it should

I assume this would formally mean that this document would "Update"
RFC 8040, and then in the document have text that explains that
rc:yang-data is deprecated?  Or do you suggest that we actually do a
8040bis that formally marks the rc:yang-data extension as
"deprecated", and instead uses yd:yang-data?

/martin

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 07:00:03 -0500

Hi Martin,

See below.

> section 1 to clarify this?

Only that it should also reflect how the update/deprecation discussed below 
is handled.

> RFC 8040,

Yes, this looks right. although it is a bit subject to how the next point 
is addressed

> and then in the document have text that explains that

This is one option. Another is to just update the rc module with 
rc:yang-data as deprecated.

At this point, since the document is still an individual draft, I suggest 
that the authors propose their preference and that the working group weigh 
in during the acceptance and normal WG processing.

Thanks,

Lou

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:01:10 +0000

As an author, I prefer having this draft (yang-data-ext) *update* RFC 8040 with text that explains that the rc:yang-data is deprecated and that modules should use the new yang-data definition instead.  

As NETCONF co-chair, I imagine that some future rfc8040bis will remove the rc:yang-data definition, but I don't think it is urgent to do now.

Kent

--

Hi Martin,

See below.

Thanks,

Lou