Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
Sent: 22 June 2021 10:20
Hi all,

If adding one character is not a big issue I would suggest to go for -tnl, as -tn might cause ambiguity with a lot of other items, e.g. transport network, transit node, termination node...while the only thing I can think of for "tnl" is tunnel.
I would reject all the other options for the good reasons brought up by Tom.

<tp>

Bear in mind that a prefix can appear 10 or more times in the path of an augment so additional characters mount up.  The choice of the terse te: and tet:, whether by accident or design, was inspired.  This also argues against the hyphen in the prefix as there are likely to be lots of hyphens in identifiers coming after the prefix in a YANG path and having a hyphen before the colon of the prefix may confuse ie
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/tet:te
               /tet:information-source-entry
               /tet:connectivity-matrices
               /tet:connectivity-matrix/tet:path-properties
               /tet:path-route-objects/tet:path-route-object
               /tet:type/tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label
               /tet:technology:
      is better than, hyphens inserted, 
augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/te-t:te
               /te-t:information-source-entry
               /te-t:connectivity-matrices
               /te-t:connectivity-matrix/te-t:path-properties
               /te-t:path-route-objects/te-t:path-route-object
               /te-t:type/te-t:label/te-t:label-hop/te-t:te-label
               /te-t:technology:
     
Tom Petch

BR
Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: den 22 juni 2021 11:08
> To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; CCAMP <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for
> flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))
>
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Italo Busi
> <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 21 June 2021 19:52
>
> Let's continue the discussion about the prefix to be used for tunnel models,
> adding also TEAS WG since this discussion impact also the ietf-te model
>
> There have been some negative comments from Tom against the current prefix
> (i.e., "te" which would also lead to "otn", "wson" and "flexg" in CCAMP tunnel
> models) which is broader than just the te-tunnel
>
> The letter 't' is not possible because it has been already used for topology (i.e.,
> "tet", "otnt", "wsont", "flexgt")
>
> The only option to abbreviate tunnel I have seen so far are tn or tnl with or
> without the hyphen: "tetn", "te-tn", "tetnl" or "te-tnl"
>
> I have a slight preference for "te-tnl", which would lead to "otn-tnl", "wson-tnl"
> and "flexg-tnl" in CCAMP, but I am open to other opinions or better proposals
>
> I have only a strong preference to close this issue as quickly as possible :)
>
> Any other opinion or better suggestions?
>
> <tp>
> I am losing track of the context, which modules are involved, but assuming it is
> WSON, OTN. FLEXG (MW?, DWDM?) then I would prefer  '-tn' to '-tnl'  as it is
> shorter  and to 'tn' as it is easier to read. 'tl' 'to' can be misread as 't1' 't0' in
> some typeface. ('tx' I often use but usually as transport or transmit not tunnel).
> 'tu' I reject because it is consonants that are wanted not vowels in such
> abbreviations,
>
> There are plenty of other topo in TEAS but I do not know which if any will have a
> matching tunnel.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> Italo
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: giovedì 1 aprile 2021 17:40
> > To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; CCAMP <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal
> > for YANG model prefix naming)
> >
> > From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Italo Busi
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 31 March 2021 16:49
> >
> > It seems that addressing this issue on a step by step has worked well
> > for the topology models
> >
> > Let's then consider a second question/convention about the prefix to
> > use for flexi-grid YANG model
> >
> > I think that "flexi-grid" (which would lead to "flexi-gt" for
> > flexi-grid Topology) is a bit too long for a prefix
> >
> > I have not found any better option to shorten flexible other than
> > flexi or flex. I think f is really too short to be meaningful and fx
> > can be misunderstood as fixed as well
> >
> > Therefore, I think we can shorten it to either "flexig" or "flexg"
> > (which would lead to "flexigt" or "flexgt" respectively for flexi-grid
> > Topology)
> >
> > I have a slight preference for the latter option ("flexg" leading to
> > "flexgt" for flexi-grid Topology) but I am open to other opinions or
> > better proposals
> >
> > Any other opinion?
> >
> > <tp>
> > I prefer flexg of the options you suggest.
> >
> > There is something un-English about flexig, it just sounds wrong, and
> > flexigt is worse.
> >
> > (In passing, flex-g looks wrong to me with just one letter after the
> > hyphen, it needs two).
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Thanks, Italo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: lunedì 15 marzo 2021 13:00
> > > To: Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>;
> > > CCAMP <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > >
> > > From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: 11 March 2021 16:38
> > >
> > > as previously anticipated during the CCAMP session today, we will
> > > ask the RFC editor to update the YANG model prefix for the WSON
> > > topology to
> > "wsont".
> > >
> > > Many thanks for sharing your thoughts and participating to the discussion.
> > >
> > > <tp>
> > > I await the minutes with interest!
> > >
> > > Meanwhile ccamp-flexigrid-yang is plain wrong.  Under IANA it
> > > registers flexi- grid-topology whereas the when statements have
> > > tet-flexig which I would characterise as ugly and uglier!  And I
> > > seem to recall this is not my first post on the prefix in this I-D
> > > which clearly is not ready for Last Call:-(
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> > > Daniele
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > Sent: den 15 februari 2021 16:17
> > > To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi
> > > <[e-mail]>; 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback Tom.
> > >
> > > Working group, other opinions?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Daniele
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tom petch <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: den 12 februari 2021 13:29
> > > To: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > <[e-mail]>; 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>;
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > >
> > > From: Italo Busi <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: 12 February 2021 09:02
> > >
> > > Thanks Daniele
> > >
> > > FYI: we are discussing these options also with TEAS experts:
> > >
> > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d3d01972-8c4b2077-d3d059e9-
> > > 86959e472243-ddf7de26918206cd&q=1&e=586b5fcf-a971-4d25-81f3-
> > > 4c64316f0395&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?
> > >
> > > <tp>
> > > Since TEAS already has its tanks on the lawn, I would go for wsont.
> > >
> > > Adrian expressed a preference for ...topo but I think that wrong as
> > > it gets too long IMHO as with ethtetopo or else eth-te-topo
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > > Italo
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: giovedì 4 febbraio 2021 09:14
> > > > To: tom petch <[e-mail]>; 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>;
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > 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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
> > > > Sent: den 3 februari 2021 17:44
> > > > To: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > >
> > > > From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> > > > 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > > =
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp