Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits

[Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter

The 4 drafts you propose make lots of sense.

I propose to start by the item 'I' (The YANG to CBOR mapping), follow by item 'iv' (The Function set specification), follow by items 'II' and 'III'.
I propose this order since examples in the latter will be based on the first two deliverables.

I have extracted section 4 and 5 of the CoOL draft as starting point, see attachments.
Do you accept this contribution as strawman for this work?

Should we create a specific mailing list for this work?

Regards,

Michel Veillette
System Architecture Director
Trilliant Inc.
Tel: [phone] ext. 237
[e-mail]
www.trilliantinc.com   


-----Original Message-----
From: core [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of peter van der Stok
Sent: November-17-15 4:41 AM
To: Core <[e-mail]>
Subject: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits

Hi all,

During the Yokohama meeting I proposed to split the CoMI/CoOl drafts into three parts as suggested by Juergen Schoenwalder in a separate earlier communication.
This e_mail sets out in more detail why the proposed split is a good one.

The proposed three parts are:
1) The Function Set (sections 2, 3, 4 in CoMI; sections 2, 3, 7 in CoOL)
2) The YANG to CBOR mapping (section 6 in CoMI; section 5 in CoOL)
3) The YANG name compression (section 5 in CoMI; section 6 in CoOL)

The split has two advantages:
- the parts 2 and 3 can be used in other contexts, e.g. RESTCONF
- It separates out the issues which need to be solved to merge CoOL and CoMI.

I come to the generation of 4 drafts:
i) The YANG to CBOR mapping.
ii) Hashing of YANG names
iii) Managed identifier assignment to YANG names
iv) The Function set specification

Ad i) I don't expect a long list of issues for the merging. However, it may be advisable to submit the draft to the netmod WG, where much of the YANG expertise exists and the draft can be aligned with the YANG to JSON draft.
Ad ii and iii) These approaches are very different and merit independent drafts. The CoRE WG can decide to adopt 1, 2, or none of the two drafts. 
It is also possible that drafts get submitted to other WGs.
Ad iv) In my view the alignment of the two existing approaches, CoMI and CoOL, may take some time. I will be happy if in Buenos Aires we have a list with issues, accompanying motivation, and use cases.

Is this a valid approach? Comments are solicited.

Peter

--
Peter van der Stok
vanderstok consultancy
mailto: [e-mail]

_______________________________________________
core mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core