Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang-02

[[e-mail]]

Hi Tom, Authors. 

Maybe the I-D authors could add an appendix with a change log describing the
reasoning behind the split, and a note suggesting the appendix is removed
before publication. It would clearly show the history and reason for the
split without requiring an entry in the datatracker. 

BR, Dan. 

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
Sent: 26 September 2022 17:02
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on
draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang-02

ps at the end

________________________________________
From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of tom petch
<[e-mail]>
Sent: 23 September 2022 17:02

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Sent: 23 September 2022 13:21

Hi Tom,

If memory serves me well originally we had the optical-path-computation
draft only, and then we asked the authors to split into optical and OTN
drafts.
That should be right since the optical draft was first uploaded in Oct 2022
while the OTN draft in Jun 2022, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the Datatracker it's possible to mark a draft as the replacement of
another. That's usually done in the adoption process but saying that an
individual document replaces another individual document is less common.
Nevertheless we can do that if there is such need.

My problem here would be to say which draft replaces which one. The OTN
doesn't replace the original optical draft, it has just been branched from
it but doesn't replace it. Neither does the optical one, which is just an
evolution of the original draft with the OTN part being removed.

What are you suggesting as a name change once/if the drafts will be adopted?

<tp>
My primary concern is that if an AD or anyone else wants to track the
history of the YANG module for OTN, then there is nothing in
draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path computation-00 or anything thereafter to say that
this unadopted -00 is not the first version of the YANG module - which as I
said I have seen ADs stumble over.
So my first concern is that such text is present in
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-path-computation up to and including Last Call (since I
cannot see a good way of putting this detail into the datatracker). If this
means generating a -03 to include the text before adoption, then yes, that
works for me.:-)

My lesser concern is that optical-path-computation has lost one third of its
content with no explanation why so I think that that I-D also needs text
adding to explain that. I normally dislike name changes at adoption since
they make it hard to track development but here, it would for me point out
that there has been a substantial change since the pre-adoption -00.

At present it is all very obvious - a year or two down the line an AD might
be hunting through minutes to find out why who did what.

<tp>
ps
I went back to the minutes to see what they said since I read them at the
time and would have expected to notice a split of  an I-D with multiple YANG
modules.

IETF114  talks of keeping alignment but not of the split.
IETF113 talks of the number of documents being decided by dependency but
does not for me suggest a consensus.

Anyhow, I think that an AD looking for a reason would be disappointed which
is fine, it just makes me keener on having something in the I-Ds themselves
e.g. in ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang

'This YANG module was first published in
draft-gbb-ccamp-optical-path-computation-yang-00 '

Tom Petch


Tom Petch
Thanks
Daniele


> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, 23 September 2022 12:56
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: WG adoption poll on 
> draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang-
> 02
>
> I do not have a problem with the WG doing this work but think that the 
> approach is going to confuse and mislead.
>
> The content of this started life elsewhere, under a different name, 
> and I can see nothing in the I-D or in the datatracker to record this 
> history. I have seen ADs fail to understand that there has been a 
> name change and go off on the wrong track as a result.
>
> I think that both the otn and the optical I-D need statements in them 
> about this history.
>
> I think also that this is one of those rare cases when changing the 
> name on adoption would be a good thing, not so much for this I-D as 
> for draft-gbb- optical-path-computation-yang which is materially different
from its precursor.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ________________________________________
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli 
> <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
> Sent: 21 September 2022 13:39
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on 
> draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-
> yang-02
>
> CCAMP,
>
> Thanks to the prompt replies to the IPR polling we can start the WG 
> adoption process of the YANG path computation drafts.
>
> This starts a 2 weeks working group adoption call on 
> draft-gbb-ccamp-OTN-
> path-computation-yang-02
> The last call ends on Wednesday October 5th. Please send you comments 
> to the CCAMP mailing list.
>
> All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been 
> collected and can be found in the history of the document:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-
> yang/history/
> Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniele & Fatai


_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp