[CCAMP] Consideration on Splittng type module for tech-specific YANG models

"Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)" <zhenghaomian@huawei.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6EC3130E48; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wj4VoXdk3_RV; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92FCB130DD1; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B6542C8864A4D; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:16:45 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:16:46 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:16:44 +0800
From: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)" <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>
To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Consideration on Splittng type module for tech-specific YANG models
Thread-Index: AdRhWQJAwunxtO5NSbiT4FaVUbnGHQ==
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:16:44 +0000
Message-ID: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B705196@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43B705196dggeml511mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/FOexrPQ4yUN8DiHIse3YxgMgppA>
Subject: [CCAMP] Consideration on Splittng type module for tech-specific YANG models
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:16:52 -0000

Hi, WG,

As you may know, the teas working group split the ietf-te-types as a separate document draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types/>;. The module ietf-te-types is imported in both ietf-te-topology module and ietf-te module, so a separation would help progress these drafts.

>From the perspective of ccamp, the same issue applies on OTN drafts as well. In both of the draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/> (speficy module ietf-otn-topology) and draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model/> (specify module ietf-otn-tunnel), the module ietf-otn-types (currently also defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model<https://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model/>)was imported. To address the potential issue on publish topology without mature types supporting, two possible approaches would be helpful, 1) split out the otn-types as a separate draft, as how teas WG is doing; 2) move the current otn-types into draft-otn-topology, which will probably come earlier than draft-otn-tunnel, as how WSON-specific module is doing.

The authors are open to any of these two approaches, and expect our decision before YANG doctor review of any documents. We also wish the module otn-types can be reviewed at the first iteration. Thank you.

Best wishes,