Re: [core] CoMI Cool draft splits

Hi Michel,

thanks for our approval. We are on the road now.
I am preparing an e_mail on the YANG to CBOR mapping to be sent 
to-morrow.
It takes some time to go through all details.

Cheerio,

Peter

Michel Veillette schreef op 2015-11-17 20:19:
> 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: 450-375-0556 ext. 237
> michel.veillette@trilliantinc.com
> www.trilliantinc.com  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of peter van der 
> Stok
> Sent: November-17-15 4:41 AM
> To: Core <core@ietf.org>
> 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: consultancy@vanderstok.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core