Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

>> Proposal for YANG model prefix naming.
>>
>> Radek and then Tom raised the issue of consistency in prefix naming based
on
>> the fact that the TE topology model uses 'tet' and the TE topology state
>> model uses 'tet-s'
>
> I think that the starting point is a list of I-D/RFC and I see some
glitches in your list.
>
> draft-ietf-client-signal-yang probably should be
draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang

Yes, typo.

> I see two flexigrid I-D but you only list one

I'm at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/documents/ looking at extant WG
documents. 
Looks like draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-media-channel-yang expired almost 6
months ago.

> wson-yang and l1types have been approved by the IESG so I regard those as
fixed
> points that it is now too late to change and which we should build around

Well, colour me confused.
I thought this whole thing came up in debate of the WSON YANG model.
If that debate is now closed, let's all move on and not worry about any of
this any more.

> I have seen more than one wson model

There's an information model in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-iv-info, but no data
model.
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-tunnel-model expired almost 6 months ago

> microwave seems to be missing

draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang expired almost 18 months ago




CCAMP is currently working on plenty of YANG models, so it might be worth
stepping back and getting the prefixes consistent across all of our work.
I'm not sure this is the most important thing on our list, and perhaps it
would be better to discuss the colour of the bike shed, but to make sure
that we do this just once, here is my attempt.

My conclusion is that, although it would be nice to be consistent with using
just a suffix of 't' to indicate 'topology', this becomes messy with some of
the longer names, and it is clearer to always use 'topo' (leaving the TE
topology model as the odd one out).

This proposal only extends to CCAMP YANG models, and I don't think this list
can debate the wider scoping of prefixes, but I think it would extend well
enough.

The list shows...
Draftname
Modelname (currentprefix)--->(proposedprefix)

draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang
ietf-eth-tran-service (ethtsvc)--->(etht-svc)
ietf-eth-tran-types (etht-types) --->(etht-types)
ietf-trans-client-service (clntsvc) --->(tclnt-svc)
ietf-trans-client-svc-types (clntsvc-types) --->(tclnt-svc-types)

draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang
ietf-ext-xponder-wdm-if (ietf-ext-xponder-wdm-if)--->(ext-xponder-wdm-if)

draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang
ietf-flexi-grid-topology (flexi-grid-topology) --->(flexi-grid-topo)

draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang
ietf-l1csm (l1csm) --->(l1csm)

draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types
ietf-layer0-types (l0-types) --->(l0-types)

draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types
ietf-layer1-types (l1-types) --->(l1types)

draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang
ietf-optical-impairment-topology (optical-imp-topo) --->(optical-imp-topo)

draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang
ietf-otn-topology (otntopo) --->(otn-topo)

draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model
ietf-otn-tunnel (otn-tunnel) --->(otn-tunnel)

draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang
ietf-wson-topology  (wson) --->(wson-topo)


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