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

Hi Rodney ,

Although I’m still confused about what part of the current DetNet YANG may overlap IEEE YANG, I agree with Lou that it is reasonable to clarify the relationship between IETF/DetNet YANG and IEEE/TSN YANG.  In order to clear this up and make an agreement, could you give some suggestions about how to build up communication between these two SDO,  in order to move the work forward together?

Best Regards
Xuesong

From: detnet [mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:56 PM
To: Rodney Cummings <rodney.cummings@ni.com>; Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas@ericsson.com>; detnet@ietf.org
Cc: detnet-chairs@ietf.org
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 <detnet-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:detnet-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Janos Farkas

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:02 PM

To: detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>

Cc: detnet-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:detnet-chairs@ietf.org>

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

detnet@ietf.org<mailto:detnet@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet