Subject: [Netconf] On the registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:50:09 -0400

For any who haven't followed it, we had a discussion about the
experimental document draft-mm-netconf-time-capability, which
registers a NETCONF capability URN.  Here's my last comment on the
point, after I cleared my DISCUSS ballot:

----------
The registration policy for the NETCONF Capability URNs registry is
Standards Action, and this document, with Experimental status, does
not meet the requirement that the registration come from a Standards
Track RFC.  This document cannot make that registration.

After discussion about whether the IESG should make an exception in
this case and allow the registration, I agree that it's the right
thing to do for this document, so I've cleared my DISCUSS ballot on
that point.

But at the same time, it seems that the registration policy is too
strict, and should be IETF Review, which allows the NETCONF working
group to make the decision by getting IETF consensus on the
registration -- there's no need to specifically require a Standards
Track RFC.  To that end, I've submitted an Internet draft,
draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update, which I ask the Network
Operations AD to sponsor, in coordination with the NETCONF working
group.
----------

I typo'ed the filename (made it "-netmod-" rather than "-netconf-");
sorry about that.  In any case, the NETCONF working group should look
at it and comment.  It's straightforward, just changing the
registration policy and explaining why.  I don't expect there'll be
controversy with it, but please do give it a review and comment, and
let Benoît and Joel know if y'all think it's acceptable for one of
them to AD-sponsor:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update/

Please keep me on CC for any discussion, so I'll see the messages,
though I'll also keep an eye on the mailing list archive.

Thanks,
Barry, ART AD

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:25:01 +0200

Dear all,

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update-00

This document, which updates the NETCONF Capability URNs registry 
policy, requires the process defined in RFC 2026. This means that it 
needs to be discussed, reviewed by the responsible AD, given an 
IETF-wide last call, and reviewed and approved by the IESG.

I hope that it can go fairly quickly, as it's a simple action. 
Therefore, I propose to keep this document as an individual submission, 
which I will AD sponsor.  However, neither Bary nor I are going to push 
this ahead against the working group's opposition.

So it's time to speak up if you disagree with that policy change.
A final consensus call will be made during the NETCONF meeting in Yokohama.

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)

> .

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:12:55 +0000

I'm okay with the change, but how does it affect 6241?  Specifically, RFC
6241 Section 10.4 says:

   Additions to the registry require IETF Standards Action.

which would no longer be accurate.  Should
draft-leiba-netmod-regpolicy-update "update" 6241?

Thanks,
Kent

On 10/16/15, 5:25 AM, "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>Netconf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:40:02 -0400

> Should

Yes, it should, and I'll make that revision.  Thanks, Kent.

Barry

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:46:06 +0900

> this ahead against the working group's opposition.

With time capability, I thing a pretty decent case was made that
experimentation rather than standardization was a necessary step. I
think the document stood up to the test of exception handly but, in the
future we should imho be more easily able to assign codepoints as
necessary on the basis of ietf consensus.

Personally I'd be fine without having to repeat process.

In favor,

thanks
joel