Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Hi Tom,

all valuable comments. As co-author of the draft I'm inclined to accept all of them. As co-chair I believe they can be addressed after the adoption of the draft. Moreover since you are suggesting a split of the text as it is, I don't se any issue in adopting the draft and then splitting it into two WG documents. 
As Young correctly remembered the adoption of the draft is the time in which the WG starts to work on it as there is interest. If we adopted drafts ready for publication we would be an acceptance board and not a working group 😊

By the way the decision on this is on Fatai since I'm co-authoring the draft and I lose all of my rights as co-chair on the draft.

BR
Daniele  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: martedì 10 aprile 2018 17:49
> To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>; Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)
> <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; ccamp@ietf.org
> Cc: ccamp-chairs@ietf.org; draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-
> 01
> 
> Lee
> 
> I am suggesting that this should not be one I-D at all but should be split into
> two I-D, with the body of one I-D containing from
>           identity protocol-type {
> to
>           /* coding func needs to expand for Fiber Channel, SONET, SDH */ or
> perhaps as far as
>             "ER4-PMD-clause-88 Optical Interface function for 100GBASE-R PCS-
> 82"; (these last I am less familiar with compared to GigE, STM, OC etc))
> 
> with the other I-D being more or less
>         grouping uni-attributes {
> to
>         }//service top container
> 
> that is, the list of protocol types, at least, are likely to be needed by other
> CCAMP RFC and perhaps by other WG RFC - MPLS, say - and so belong in a
> separate RFC.
> 
> It does the IETF no good to have Gigabit Ethernet defined in many different
> places without good cause, and I struggle to think of such a cause.
> 
> I do not think that having two modules, one types, one data, in the single RFC
> would form a good basis for ongoing work (unlike, say, microwave radio
> where having two YANG modules in one RFC seems ok since the scope for
> reuse of the 'enumerations' seems more limited).
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Leeyoung" <leeyoung@huawei.com>
> To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>; "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)"
> <zhangfatai@huawei.com>; <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Cc: <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:27 PM
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on
> draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
> 
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thank you for your comment.
> I agree with you. We can improve the model using types statement instead
> of the enumeration of the list.
> 
> I think WG adoption is just a starting point not a completion of the draft and
> it's model. Please suggest other concerns so that the draft and the model can
> be improved.
> 
> Thanks.
> Young (on behalf of co-authors)
> 
> 
> From:t.petch
> To:Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang),ccamp@ietf.org, Cc:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org,draft-
> fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org,
> Date:2018-04-10 06:30:24
> Subject:Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on
> draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
> 
> Mmmm
> 
> I can't help thinking that this I-D may indicate a failure of the WG to be a WG:-
> (
> 
> I see a very long list of enumerations/identities for Gigabit Ethernet, Fiber
> channel, STM, OC, etc
> 
> Surely a layer one Connectivity Service Model is not going to be the only
> place where these are needed (Gigabit Ethernet already exists is some form)
> so what I think that a WG should be doing is to produce a 'types' module for
> generic use, IETF and even non-IETF, the way in which the Netmod WG has
> done for Interfaces, and other WGs - CCAMP - did many years earlier for MIB
> Modules.
> 
> And, albeit of less import, there are a significant number of places where this
> I-D does not conform with YANG Guidelines.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
> To: <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Cc: <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:01 AM
> Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> We now have the IPR declaration replies from all the authors/contributors
> (Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-
> yang/history
> /) and no IPR was disclosed against this document.
> This starts a two weeks poll on making
> [draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01] a CCAMP working group document.
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support"
> and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to
> have for the "support".
> The polling ends on April 24th , 2018.
> 
> Thanks
> Fatai & Daniele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >
> 