Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang

[Rodney Cummings <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Lou,

> I do think it is fair to sort out the inter-SDO related contents prior to adoption so 
> that we don't send mixed signals to the IEEE or the market.  Can you, either on-list or off-list 
> to authors, state specifically which parts of the document/tree you think should be removed?

I was not clear regarding my question on WG adoption. My concern is exactly what you describe
above. I have no problem at all with one SDO doing YANG work for another SDO's standards, as long as
the two SDOs agree to that YANG roadmap. I didn't know whether WG adoption of this document reflects
that sort of inter-SDO agreement.

My concern is to avoid overlap. If two SDOs develop YANG for the same feature, that is 
potentially painful to product implementers (which includes me). I think we can avoid that sort of 
overlap with communication from both sides on this mailing list. I don't think we need formal 
liaisons or similar.

Specifically, in draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang, my concern is Section 4 and associated YANG.
I assume that "flow configuration" is intended to be southbound. If it is southbound, these 
nodes directly overlap with YANG in progress for 802.1CB (in P802.1CBcv).

I suppose my higher level question is:
	For YANG, which SDO is addressing which topic?

For example, is IETF DetNet planning to address northbound interfaces?

If the answer is Yes, then I have no problem keeping the topology content in this draft.
Maybe we will transition that topology content to a northbound-oriented draft, but that can 
be decided later.

If the answer is Yes, what are we doing with the northbound work that has been published thus far
in 802.1Qcc?

Maybe we will transition that northbound work from 802.1 TSN to IETF DetNet over time, in order to
avoid future overlap. Maybe we will keep that topic in 802.1 TSN. Whichever we decide, it would be
helpful to make it clear, so that we can avoid drafts that overlap unintentionally.

Rodney

From: Lou Berger <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 8:56 AM
To: Rodney Cummings <[e-mail]>; Janos Farkas <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang

Hi Rodney, 
On 9/20/2018 6:29 PM, Rodney Cummings wrote:

Hi folks,

At the moment, I am "no / do not support". 

I am confused by what it means for the WG to adopt this draft.

Adoption of any draft basically means that the WG is formally working on the document/topic.  As an individual draft, the draft authors have control of a documents contents.  Once a draft is a WG document, control shifts to the WG  and the editors/authors are responsible for ensuring a document reflects consensus of the WG.  Authors do have flexibility in how they do this. For example, proposing changes in on list prior to publication of a new version, or simply putting such changes in a new version for review by the WG are both common practices.   


The draft contains YANG for configuration of IEEE 802.1 features in a node (bridge, router, etc). This includes 802.1CB ("PREOF"), 802.1Qav (credit-based shaper), and so on. There are similar YANG projects in 802.1 for these features.

I would expect that there be similarities in configuring DetNet and TSN services, but I do agree, we (DetNet and the IETF) should not be defining specifics of technology standardized by other bodies as part of our normal business.  Now if we synchronize with that other SDO, and they agree that we do some complementary work, this is fine -- but I don't believe this is the case here. 



Therefore, does adoption of this draft mean that IETF DetNet intends to do YANG work that overlaps with 802.1 YANG work?

I would hope that the answer is No.

I do think it is fair to sort out the inter-SDO related contents prior to adoption so that we don't send mixed signals to the IEEE or the market.  Can you, either on-list or off-list to authors, state specifically which parts of the document/tree you think should be removed?
 



On a different point, I don't think that topology is part of node configuration (southbound). Topology is not flow or service related, but it is between the Network Operator (controller) and the User... northbound. If I am correct, this draft is starting with an incorrect assumption.
This sounds like a topic that could get sorted post adoption, do you agree?

Thanks,
Lou


Rodney

From: detnet mailto:[e-mail] On Behalf Of Janos Farkas
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:02 PM
To: mailto:[e-mail]
Cc: mailto:[e-mail]
Subject: [Detnet] WG adoption poll draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang

Dear all, 

This is start of a two week poll on making draft-geng-detnet-conf-yang-04 
a working group document. Please send email to the list indicating 
"yes/support" or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state 
your reservations with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to 
provide comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG 
document. 

The poll ends Oct 3. 

Thanks, 
János and Lou

_______________________________________________
detnet mailing list
mailto:[e-mail]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_detnet&d=DwMDaQ&c=I_0YwoKy7z5LMTVdyO6YCiE2uzI1jjZZuIPelcSjixA&r=WA71sf2o7Dw7CbYhFt24DPjt3lJuupswWYdnboKbZ8k&m=2bVCH_eyGhx0Ye6DEdYw9o1jxRMHrpLcmVAKoLkozvI&s=cpbNBNL99UFQw8_gmcvSsl_COAbsahIZa0g0oFBSAGE&e=