Re: [CCAMP] Breaking out generic models from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang

[Jonas Ahlberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback.

We have now initiated the work to split it into three separate drafts.
We have also created two new repositories, so there is now one repository per draft.

  *   https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang
  *   https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-bwa-topo-yang
  *   https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-if-ref-topo-yang

We will publish them as soon as the editorial work to do the split and the addition of new descriptions, clarifications and examples is completed, or at least when it is good enough for a 1st version of a new draft.

Regards
/JonasA


From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2022 10:40
To: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jonas Ahlberg <jonas.ahlberg=[e-mail]>; CCAMP <[e-mail]>; Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Breaking out generic models from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang

Jonas, all,

I would say there is enough consensus to proceed with the split.
Regarding the home for the documents you can publish them in CCAMP and then we can discuss also with John to understand what the best fit would be. In the meantime i would suggest to upload them to avoid someone might not see them and reinvent the wheel as Tom suggested.

Thanks
Daniele

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:39 AM tom petch <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
From: CCAMP <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 29 November 2022 12:58

I support splitting the generic modules and the MW topology module into different drafts. The main reason is that people not interested in MW but interested in the generic modules will not read the draft and do not notice the generic modules (something similar has already happened to me with another draft in another WG)

I have no strong opinion between two versus three I-Ds. Sergio and Daniele have provided valid advantages to split into three documents. The only drawback I can see is that the two generic documents will be quite small, but this does not look a big issue.

In a nutshell I have a slight preference for three documents, but I can leave with two documents as well

<tp2>

Italo

I agree that a three-way split will create two small modules but my thinking is that they might grow.  If we provide a place for 'good ideas' related to a termination point, or a link, or a node or... then others night add to them with a revised I-D.  By contrast, put it all in one place, (teas-te-types:-(  and  no-one may notice and may re-invent the wheel.

Tom Petch

Italo

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: giovedì 24 novembre 2022 14:41
To: Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Jonas Ahlberg <jonas.ahlberg=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Breaking out generic models from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang

Hi Jonas,

I concur with Sergio. Whatever is common to all technologies should be carved out from technology specific documents and models.

My first thought would be to suggest to go for 3 different documents (i.e. split further the bandwidth-availability-topology and interface-reference-topology models in two separate documents) as I see cases in which implementers might be interested in just one of the two and not the other… but I’d like to hear also your/the WG opinion.

Thanks
Daniele

From: CCAMP <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> On Behalf Of Sergio Belotti (Nokia)
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2022 14:29
To: Jonas Ahlberg <jonas.ahlberg=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:jonas.ahlberg<mailto:jonas.ahlberg>=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Cc: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Breaking out generic models from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang

Hi Jonas, co-authors,
I think it is a good idea to separate the modules that can be generic and usable by other technology beyond MW.
Just one question to clarify your intention: you wrote to put the generic modules in separate draft .
I’m wondering if you think to have just a single separate draft encompassing both interface and bandwidth modules or you also consider to have a specific draft for any modules: since the bandwidth-availability-topology and interface-reference-topology are not strictly correlated one to the other you can have the need to modify the bandwidth modules and instead nothing to do with interface module, and you could slow down the process of draft progress to whom is interested just to use the  interface module.


My2 cents
Thanks

Sergio

From: CCAMP <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>> On Behalf Of Jonas Ahlberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 8:49 AM
To: 'CCAMP' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>>
Subject: [CCAMP] Breaking out generic models from draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang

Hi all,

In the current version of draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang there are a total of three models.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang/


  *   ietf-microwave-topology.yang

A model which augments te-topology with microwave specific extensions



  *   ietf-bandwidth-availability-topology.yang

This is a module for defining a bandwidth availability matrix,

for links in a topology. It is intended to be used in conjunction

with an instance of ietf-network-topology and its augmentations



  *   ietf-tp-interface-reference-topology.yang

This is a module for defining a reference from a termination

point in a te-topology to a list element in interfaces as defined in RFC 8343

The last two are generic and can not only be used for a microwave topology but for any transport technology/topology. Therefore we plan to break out those two models from the microwave specific draft and instead put them in a new draft which in a better way reflects that they are generic.

We would like to get your feedback on this proposed change.

Regards
Jonas Ahlberg
on behalf of the microwave team

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp