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

Hi Mikael,

I share the same concern. If the process to produce RFC-based YANG 
modules is too heavy, then the YANG modules will be defined out of the 
IETF process.  Period.
The good news is that YANG modules (based on some sort of consensus or 
running code) will be defined. The bad news is the IETF will not be 
relevant any longer.

Easing the YANG modules production at the IETF is a top of mind priority.

Regards, Benoit

> 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.