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

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Dan,

The appendix sounds great. That would solve the issue and won't cause any problem with the Datatracker.

You can introduce it in the WG -00 version as it's not changing the content of the draft.

Thanks
Daniele  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel King <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2022 21:01
> To: 'tom petch' <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-
> computation-yang-02
> 
> 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