Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Sergio, Tom,

Thanks for your comments.

The scope of the document has been discussed in the past but it seems that the text in the draft has not been properly updated and it needs some clean-up.

Based on past discussion, the scope of the proposed YANG model is to address these two use cases:
    - ETH Access Links Discovery
    - ETH TE Topology Discovery

See also: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/materials/slides-108-ccamp-2-a-yang-data-model-for-ethernet-te-topology-03

It is worth clarifying that:
- the YANG model is aligned with the scope: the network-types (also to augment the packet TE topology, as suggested by TEAS experts);
- the title of the draft (A YANG Data Model for Ethernet TE Topology) and the abstract have been fixed since the -06 revision;
- the draft name and text descriptions need to be aligned with the scope.

I agree with Sergio that these fixes can be done after WG adoption.

Italo (on behalf of co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: mercoledì 10 febbraio 2021 12:39
> To: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>; Daniele
> Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
> Cc: CCAMP <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-
> yang-10
> 
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Belotti, Sergio (Nokia -
> IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 10 February 2021 10:59
> 
> Hi Daniele, Fatai, all,
> Yes/support WG adoption (as contributor).
> 
> On the other hand,
> I have a basic comment that can be addressed after adoption.
> The draft is talking about generic client topology over transport network but in
> fact is addressing Ethernet with TE attributes only.
> 
> I think the name of the draft is misleading , why do not name draft like eth-
> client-topo, specifying the reference layer technology. In the introduction the
> draft is saying "This document defines a data model of all client-layer
> Topology", but this is not the case , since Ethernet only is described.
> 
> I think a better description of the use-case depicted in the draft should be
> worked out after adoption.
> 
> <tp>
> I think you make excellent points but think they need to be addressed before
> adoption.
> 
> You are saying that the Introduction is wrong which makes it possible that
> people will be misled as to what they are supporting the adoption of.
> 
> And changing the title makes it harder to track the history of the I-D.  I know of
> one case where the WG AD lost track of the past history of an I-D as a result.
> The datatracker makes it possible to find previous names but you have to
> know that there are previous names and to go looking for them.  The time for
> change is before adoption
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Sergio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 1:29 PM
> To: CCAMP <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-
> 10
> 
> CCAMP,
> 
> All the IPR declarations regarding draft-zheng-ccamp-client-topo-yang-10have
> been collected, this starts the polling for its adoption by CCAMP.
> 
> The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Tuesday February 23rd.
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support"
> and a motivation for  your reply, mandatory for the "not support" and nice to
> have for the "support".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Daniele & Fatai
> 
>