Re: [I2nsf] Request for Comments, Interest and Support in I2NSF Re-Chartering

[t petch <[e-mail]>]

On 26/03/2022 14:49, Susan Hares wrote:
> Tom:
>
> Thank you for this feedback.
>
> This error in the model comes from the initial assumptions during the start
> of these models.  This error was a design choice in the early models based
> on the flux in Yang during the NMDA model discussions.  Benoit's advice was
> to try to get models out and then revise.   The security ADs were pushing
> the working group to make progress.  Benoit and the security ADs wanted
> progress.  The tenant of "replication" works in that environment.
>
> Versioning in Yang models  is still a work in progress.  This round of
> versioning is still  not complex enough for BGP policy modeling.  (And
> IMHO/AFAIK  Open Config Yang modeling is behind IETF modeling in complex
> versioning).
>
> Therefore, the error in that advice to Linda Dunbar and Paul Jeong is mine.
> Paul, his co-authors, and his students have done the best possible based on
> that advice.  Time has moved on in both realms (netmod) and security.   The
> current security ADs were not privy to these pieces of advice.
>
> Would you suggest going back to square-1 to rework each of these models?
> If so, should this be the first order of work?

Sue,

No way!  I look at OPSAWG who decided to produce four modules, got two 
to RFC and then realised how much was in common between the four so 
produced a common and used that in the latter two and will use it in any 
revision of the first two RFC.  Here you have five about to become RFC 
as-is, but I would like to see prioritised a 'common' - definitions, 
explanations (e.g. PMR, 'Base identity...', Capability, ...) and YANG 
(identity!), based on those five, as the next work item after that so 
that the I-D for the next YANG model - I see several have been suggested 
- after that can use that work, as can those that come after that; as 
could any revisions of the first five.

It is ironic, really.  In general, in YANG, I see a lot of 'common' YANG 
type, YANG grouping within a module which add nothing but complexity to 
the module and whatever the opposite of ease-of-use is; and I then see 
YANG doctors comment that this grouping is only used once, get rid of 
it; which I agree with. So, to be advocating a 'common' is unusual for me.

Tom Petch

> Just a warning, refactoring to remove the "replication" works best as Paul
> Jeong has done it.  It is careful and precise work reviewed by a few
> experts.  The working group reviews for high level content.  Paul Jeong's
> presentation at IETF 113 gave that type of review.   I wish we would have
> had a longer time period, but hybrid meetings shorten "off-line meetings".
>
> WGs focus on protocol content (routing or security WG) struggle to maintain
> moment cycling around refactoring.   Combing the refactoring work with
> additional work helps keep a working group functional.
>
> Any advice?
>
> Sue
>
> Opinion: The IETF needs to strong cross-area management as we head into 5G
> work.   Security in all areas is key for 5G needs.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: t petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 5:05 AM
> To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong; [e-mail]
> Cc: Roman Danyliw; Panwei (William); Henk Birkholz; tom petch; yangpenglin;
> Susan Hares; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA
> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Request for Comments, Interest and Support in I2NSF
> Re-Chartering
>
> On 24/03/2022 07:38, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
>> Hi I2NSF WG,
>> As you know, our I2NSF WG will discuss the I2NSF Re-Chartering
>> at IETF-113 I2NSF WG Session today.
>>
>> I attach the text of the re-chartering as pdf and txt files.
>
> Those that have worked on the current five I2NSF I-D will know that they
> do not subscribe to the basic tenet of 'reference not replicate' and in
> doing so have created many issues of lack of coherence (some of which
> have been resolved, some of which may never be resolved) and have
> created much additional work.  In a sense, the current work is built on
> foundations of sand, which may or may not support ongoing work.
>
> What is needed, and for me it is the overwhelming priority, before any
> new models are crafted, is a 'common' I-D to reduce or eliminate this
> replication even if it cannot be applied immediately to those five I-D.
>    The current charter hints at the need for this in its bullets and in
> its list of deliverables.  The terminology draft might have done this
> but has gone in a slightly different direction.  Common YANG capability
> statements are an obvious example but even a common base of plain text
> would make the work simpler, less error-prone.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> Our five core I2NSF YANG data model drafts are almost completed.
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>> 1. Capability YANG Data Model
>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model
> -27
>>
>> 2. NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-
> dm-22
>>
>> 3. Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model
>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-m
> odel-16
>>
>> 4. Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-inter
> face-dm-17
>>
>> 5. Registration Interface YANG Data Model
>>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interfac
> e-dm-15
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>>
>> The three of them (i.e., 1, 2, and 3) got the feedback of the IESG and
>> the revisions have been sent to the IESG reviewers.
>>
>> The remaining two (i.e., 4, 5) are well-synchronized with the others.
>> I will present the updates of them today's I2NSF WG.
>> I attach the slides for them for your easy checking.
>>
>> Our AD Roman has concerns about the low energy of our I2NSF WG for the new
>> work items in the I2NSF Re-chartering.
>>
>> Could you speak up your voice about your comments, interest, and support
> of
>> our I2NSF Re-Chartering?
>>
>> See you online at IETF-113 I2NSF WG Session today.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I2nsf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>>
>
> .
>