Re: [CCAMP] Consideration on Splittng type module for tech-specific YANG models

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Thu, 11 October 2018 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C00130DEC; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ru2LFXlTH-yZ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 209E312785F; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y11-v6so4757981plt.3; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=VfuKK1EV0wksy6I03j0iu9ZAMDjabGorRz1c6ObgdxA=; b=RMi/ZrcH13hJ0pUaoBy8W5TUtawLdcQ52tkfV1tMtbb9gWn5/Kuvr3pU16CH9EkY1J klS8JlMF8nDXaxYAk8b4LI0gxDWU0KT0HEIzUX4AxNY/gNpk9VJ/2DDRmmmL+UoiYUvo yOYOj0ViEXH1mYrGYjxJvakvB/q6lcB663iWcIGr4Ij8GTRN1goMWCL4HM9ZV48OaFJY umErgJQR619DlEcUih9uVhR30tk6tMfpROiZE8chShtf6DKwdvLKoK86a9YhEgFkQmtZ cShknTxOV+6SKUgoMAkcigWSDA7WUDILhtA95xG7yy75s8KILQ+564w2sj0zh3yO6bT2 vZ6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=VfuKK1EV0wksy6I03j0iu9ZAMDjabGorRz1c6ObgdxA=; b=bIIgn0OmpOJqlAV0QiKutAtxGUMRb9NvXZVts/gvgq9k289TIW+gfL64Ur8Ia7fUQd 8MQ1HyliGaO4/tXh7eYwmENjE361mj+3O/fLcqkGCgn83b+msete+kGIzgLspdrXblhk TeTuPatcK+95H2GgtE6l3WGMRr4J1RVJIhmmeEY6Q+DIyFaVK6XJU2VCRy8r1ydLMUQw XcWU7VYQWV85O91M5DpsRabFCfw6xm7h4uwmlGf36kenXmQOwd1UcVaYgaRxKHPD+uHj YLFhgumFVHjVJnnRG6ViOl4Xyyi0Nd1dZNiFmKVe/VHSlyoGVLWNkTccf6psfZqlAkE1 Y9eQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog7tiq577MC8PagWFyzFDFVq4SNja0b4EZu0zk1P5Ms6MzqeoSA WU8OVIJqeIUC0u9d06BJHPE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61tb2diDSeVyw+wDiiyV8Zu5Md9tYkuek7TzTfm4GKSUQaRE+tHYUziSjGBjGyeJtt83v89zQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b092:: with SMTP id p18-v6mr2796480plr.124.1539289401600; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id r23-v6sm33299948pfh.79.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A9163910-723B-41F5-ABA3-49C5553506F5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:23:19 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
To: "Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept)" <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Consideration on Splittng type module for tech-specific YANG models
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:23:25 -0000

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 5:16 AM, Zhenghaomian (Zhenghaomian, Optical &Microwave Technology Research Dept) <> wrote:
> Hi, WG, 
> As you may know, the teas working group split the ietf-te-types as a separate document draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types <>. The module ietf-te-types is imported in both ietf-te-topology module and ietf-te module, so a separation would help progress these drafts.

I am not sure it helps progress any of the documents. And I do not think that that should be reason to split the draft. The reason has to be because the types defined are used by multiple modules. If it is just another draft that needs this type, you might still be better off leaving them in one of the drafts.

Separating them does not make them go any faster. You will need to have a normative reference to where the te types are defined, and if the document containing te types is not ready, it will cause other drafts to be stuck in MISREF.

> From the perspective of ccamp, the same issue applies on OTN drafts as well. In both of the draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang <> (speficy module ietf-otn-topology) and draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model <> (specify module ietf-otn-tunnel), the module ietf-otn-types (currently also defined in draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model <>)was imported. To address the potential issue on publish topology without mature types supporting, two possible approaches would be helpful, 1) split out the otn-types as a separate draft, as how teas WG is doing; 2) move the current otn-types into draft-otn-topology, which will probably come earlier than draft-otn-tunnel, as how WSON-specific module is doing.
> The authors are open to any of these two approaches, and expect our decision before YANG doctor review of any documents. We also wish the module otn-types can be reviewed at the first iteration. Thank you.

Do not think that helps. YANG doctors like to see not just the types, but how they are used. You should send the documents as a bundle.

> Best wishes,
> Haomian
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> <>
> <>
Mahesh Jethanandani //YANG Doctor hat