Re: configuration: writable MIB modules versus NETCONF/YANG modules

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]>wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>  For instance, today an author can request protocol number allocations from
>>
>>> IANA etc. Wouldn't it make sense to have a similar model for extensions
>>> of
>>> yang models?
>>>
>>
>> Anybody can define their own YANG modules. IANA is not needed
>> to publish non-IETF modules.
>>
>
> You completely missed my point. My point was to have yang modules defined
> in the same RFC as the proposed standard was defined in, and that a request
> would go out to some entity to approve the proposed yang model for whatever
> was being standardized. There would be a repository of IETF yang models
> somewhere, and these would no longer be published in RFC form, but by some
> other process. The IANA reference was just an example of existing such
> process/registry.
>
>
I don't see any reason to avoid the RFC publication process for YANG
modules.


> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email protected]
>

Andy

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area