Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01

Hi Tom,

revised text for section 2.3.1 of the current draft and additional 
subsections describing how the YANG model relates to the ITU-T data 
plane definitions is already in preparation
and will be shared with the WG soon. The plan is to produce a 01-version 
once the draft will have become a WG draft. This 01-version will include 
the revised text. Then, the
01-version of the WG draft will be liaised to ITU-T SG15 for comment. 
This is what has been agreed at a side meeting in Prague among the 
co-authors and folks who were
interested in this subject.

Thanks,
Dieter

On 02.04.2019 18:43, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> Yes, indeed I agree with you. Our intent is to specify the need for the liaison statement, the scope, and terminology in the main text (as you pointed out Section 2.3.1 in the current draft). Our plan is to highlight this section in the very upfront of the revised draft (perhaps 01 of the WG draft-to-be).
>
> Thanks.
> Young
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:34 AM
> To: julien.meuric@orange.com
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
> To: "tom petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Cc: <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 2:53 PM
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Though it may be true from a content perspective, any individual draft
>> has the same administrative status as draft-foo-bar containing a
> stuffed
>> snails recipe. A formal step is required before liaising to another
> SDO,
>> adoption by a WG is the 1st one.
> Indeed (tasty as stuffed snails are).
>
> My thinking is that the liaison should be simpler, plain text, rather than being wrapped as a YANG module, which may or may not encourage readers in the ITU.  It seems to me that it is Section 2.3.1 that needs a response from the ITU and that wrapping that up in a YANG module may make that harder to achieve.  That is what gives me pause.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Julien
>>
>>
>> On 02/04/2019 13:41, tom petch wrote:
>>> I never see much difference between working on an unadopted I-D and
> an
>>> adopted one so see scope for progress - e.g. Normative References -
> even
>>> if it is not adopted at this moment in time..
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp