Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Fri, 12 February 2021 09:03 UTC
Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF373A145C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 01:03:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sPy_5r8y4lSM for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 01:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11E2D3A1461 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 01:03:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DcS9H46fDz67dXN; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:59:15 +0800 (CST)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:02:59 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 10:02:58 +0100
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: "rkrejci@cesnet.cz" <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
Thread-Index: AQHW+tftwMr1BpOqepbnNlgOeij/oapUQIEg
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:02:58 +0000
Message-ID: <f247e3cd95b04e9ea8231bb0e5c83d5f@huawei.com>
References: <08ca01d6f990$e00a0c10$a01e2430$@olddog.co.uk> <AM7PR07MB6248AA17D8F8FFA15DEC59E7A0B49@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <00a801d6fa25$ce2da480$6a88ed80$@olddog.co.uk> <AM7PR07MB624834E1227EC8F9A716DA7AA0B49@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR0701MB2282C6995DF76BF5AD7432FDF0B39@HE1PR0701MB2282.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB2282C6995DF76BF5AD7432FDF0B39@HE1PR0701MB2282.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.26.155]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/opOLI59GPoaO5cSMU8tU633tKvc>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:03:18 -0000
Thanks Daniele FYI: we are discussing these options also with TEAS experts: https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/issues/125 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 >
- [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming tom petch
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming tom petch
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming tom petch
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Young Lee
- Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- [CCAMP] FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix na… tom petch