Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming

Hi Italo,

Thanks for bringing this forward. 

I agree with the L0 types. Regarding the WSON topology I would prefer to be as much aligned as possible with the TE topology , but can live with both options if the WG has a strong preference.

Thanks,
Daniele  

-----Original Message-----
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> 
Sent: den 12 februari 2021 10:03
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming

Thanks Daniele

FYI: we are discussing these options also with TEAS experts:

https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=9a8a1fdc-c51126bd-9a8a5f47-86d8a30ca42b-e243c3b8875e5f84&q=1&e=1115c25e-b420-49d3-8f20-10e691d487cb&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftsaad-dev%2Fte%2Fissues%2F125

Let's see if we can get an agreement at least for these two drafts which are in RFC queue:

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

I think we can agree with this prefix since all the proposals are aligned.

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

Here, I think we have two candidates: wson-topo and wsont

I have a slight preference for wsont since it is aligned with tet and nt prefix conventions used in RFC8795 and RFC8345 but I can accept wson-topo (it could be seen as aligned with wson-tunnel or wson-tnl prefix conventions).

What do you think?

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com]
> Sent: giovedì 4 febbraio 2021 09:14
> To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>; 
> adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> 
> Tom, Adrian, all,
> 
> The L0 types and the WSON topology drafts are now on hold. We can 
> include them in the updated prefix naming.
> The RFC editor will delay processing these documents until the updated 
> versions are available. The AD (John or Deborah) will need to approve 
> the changes.
> 
> This will also affect the IANA registries, they have been informed as well.
> 
> BR
> Daniele
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: den 3 februari 2021 17:44
> To: 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> 
> From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Sent: 03 February 2021 12:12
> 
> 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
> 
> <tp>
> 
> Adrian,
> 
> The progress of I-D in the routing area can be erratic.  The fact that 
> the IETF has expired the I-D does not mean that it will not come back 
> to life - a whole raft of I-D that were produced in a rush just before 
> the IETF meeting have just expired 6 months later and some are now 
> being resuscitated, others will be in future, others will not.  Some re-appear years later when their time has come.
> 
> To me, an expired draft says that someone was interested enough to put 
> in a lot of work and even if that work is not current, then it would 
> be a short- sighted naming convention, although well in keeping with 
> the traditions of the IETF, not to cater for such work in future.
> 
> For myself, I like names that start with the most important property 
> and for me, that is WSON. OTN, RSVP and so on, and that is the basis 
> on which I reviewed them, and not the fact that they are te - the 
> rival proposal is for te to be the centre of the universe around which 
> everything revolves, regardless of which WG  - TEAS, CCAMP, ... -it may be in.  I am not a fan of this approach.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 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
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> =
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 