RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Fri, 25 April 2008 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43A33A685E; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26BB3A6850 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yxtm4H6dtus4 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCE43A6A58 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by QMTA03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id HeS91Z0040EPchoA304D00; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:03:18 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Hf671Z0094HwxpC8M00000; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:06:13 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=0gPrmgJd8jIA:10 a=v9OEfKO0-nUA:10 a=hkQ4lSi2AAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=vj2nFF74AAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=GqN-UeaiX9ZBFPbahPcA:9 a=CzA-ih-BzUre7qH2dU8A:7 a=egNqjzDAJ5Na8C4nW_YhdczjQH8A:4 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=si9q_4b84H0A:10 a=hPjdaMEvmhQA:10 a=50e4U0PicR4A:10
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Eric Rescorla'" <ekr@networkresonance.com>, "'Bert Wijnen - IETF'" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
References: <20080422210658.102D45081A@romeo.rtfm.com><NIEJLKBACMDODCGLGOCNMEGNEMAA.bertietf@bwijnen.net> <20080422211826.11E165081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
Subject: RE: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:06:04 -0400
Message-ID: <021001c8a681$4f37ad20$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20080422211826.11E165081A@romeo.rtfm.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
thread-index: Acikvl2I9fzrX0mcRxGlYqqWczt61ABJbFOA
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

Netconf work has been discussed on multiple different mailing lists.
To help IETF participants to find the various discussions relateds to
Netconf data modeling langauges, here is a historical listing of where
the discussions have taken place (starting in Sep 07; if anybody wants
pointers to the earlier discussions, just ask).

An overview of where discussions are held:
Netconf protocol: netconf@ietf.org
Netconf Going On: ngo@ietf.org
Requirements for Netconf Data Modeling Languages:
http://www.partain.se/pipermail/rcdml/
YANG design details: yang@ietf.org


Sep07: A NDM BOF was requested at ietf70 to discuss creating a WG for
Netconf data modeling
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00260.html). This
thread contains a long discussion about whether a new DML is needed,
whether XSD or RNG meet the requirements, and discusses a two-tiered
approach. 

The IESG and IAB held discussions and the BOF was not approved. I do
not know if these discussions are documented.

To help the Netconf community be aware of Netconf-related work at
IETF70, the following was posted to the NGO mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00397.html

Some discussions were held on the NGO mailing list, whose archive can
be found at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/maillist.html.
A discussion thread on why Netconf needs a data modeling langauge can
be found at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00408.html

IETF70:

A discussion was held in the APPS open area meeting of IETF70 instead.
The APPS area open meeting discussed why this work was needed. The
minutes unfortunately summarize this extremely lightly, and the
discussion of whether existing languages could be used was summarized
as "whether the use of schema languages was dismissed too easily",
without capturing the lengthy discussion on this point. 

The details of the discussion can be heard at
http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/media/ietf70/ietf70-ch1-
mon-am-apparea.mp3, starting at approximately 53 minutes into the
recording. A consensus call was made to determine whether there was
support for a BOF based on concrete proposals. Strong consensus for a
BOF. Concrete proposals should explain what each does well, and what
common requirements are met by the model. 

Additional discussion occurred during the OPS Open Area meeting, with
some comparion of proposals. MP3 audio is available at
http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/media/ietf70/ietf70-ch5-
mon-eve-opsarea.mp3 (starting at 2:17).

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00489.html details
the request for a BOF to compare approaches to NETCONF Modeling
(CANMOD).

To help make the BOF more effective, the community decided to gather
requirements from the various data modeling language constituencies,
the results of which could be used to compare the concrete proposals.
A public announcement of an ad-hoc meeting to discuss requirements was
posted to the NGO mailing list
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00456.html).

The OPS ADs decided to create a design team to document the
requirements. The RCDML mailing list has been made available so people
can see what was discussed. See
http://www.partain.se/pipermail/rcdml/. The latest rev can be found at
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-presuhn-rcdml-
03.txt

Between IETF70 and IETF71, the IESG and IAB reached an agreement that
no proposals could be discussed at the BOF. I do not know if those
discussions are available anywhere.

IETF71:

The output of the RCDML requirements-gathering effort was published
and presented at the CANMOD BOF at IETF71. Minutes are available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/canmod.txt. The
following consensus points were noted:
 - Are the requirements adequately understood?  The sense of the
    room was that the requirements are adequately understood.

  - Is there a need for this work?  The sense of the room was
    that there is a need for this work.

  - Is there sufficient agreement on the requirements
    to permit progress?  This was also the sense of the room.

  - Should an IETF working group be formed?  The sense of the
    room was that a working group to develope a Data Modeling
    Language suitable for NETCONF should be formed.

  - Would additional time spent on requirements gathering
    and analysis be well-spent?  The sense of the room was
    clearly "NO" on this question.

The OPS Open Area meeting discussed Netconf DML proposals. The minutes
are at  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/opsarea.txt. The
MP3 audio is at
http://limestone.uoregon.edu/ftp/pub/videolab/media/ietf71/ietf71-ch5-
wed-noon-opsarea.mp3

Consensus was reached that YANG and RelaxNG were liked by the most
non-author readers of the proposals, but people really liked different
aspects of the proposals.

The discussion continued in the IESG Breakout room the following day.
We do not have official minutes for that discussion. I personally
arrived about 45 minutes late to the meeting. There were
representatives from most of the constituencies that had prepared
concrete proposals. They had already agreed to a strawman approach
starting with YANG as a human-friendly DML with a mapping to one of
the XML schema langauges for machine-readability. (This was consistent
with the mood of the OPS Area open meeting the day before.) It was
decided to have the rcdml design team, plus the new Netconf chairs,
develop a proposed charter.

The discussions of the charter proposal were held on the rcdml mailing
list, whose archives can be found at
http://www.partain.se/mailman/listinfo/rcdml. This mailing list had
respresentatives from each of the constituencies that prepared
proposals for the "beauty contest". 

The design team posted the proposed charter to the NGO mailing list
for review
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ngo/current/msg00745.html. The
design team proposal is of course no better than any other proposal,
so it was posted to NGO for further community discussion. 

Apr08: The IESG secretary announced a WG review for Netconf Data
Modeling Language to the IETF mailing list.

I hope this is helpful. Let me kniw if I can help further.

David Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
ietfdbh@comcast.net
dharrington@huawei.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:18 PM
> To: Bert Wijnen - IETF
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod)
> 
> At Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:10:53 +0200,
> Bert Wijnen - IETF wrote:
> > 
> > W.r.t.
> > > All this is great stuff, but it all happened after the BOF, so
> > > you can't reasonably claim that it represents BOF consensus.
> > > And since BOFs are our primary mechanism for open, cross area
> > > assessment for WG formation, I don't think it's accurate 
> to suggest
> > > that this is anywhere as near as open as actually having the
> > > discussion in the BOF and gettting consensus, nor is it a 
> substitute
> > > for that.
> > > 
> > 
> > I do not think that forming a WG MANDATES a BOF.
> > Several WGs have been formed (in the past) without a BOF.
> >
> > So pls do not depict a story as if a BOF is the only way how we
> > reach consensus in IETF on teh question of forming a WG or not.
> 
> Yes, but when you have a BOF which doesn't come to consensus on
> a technical direction, which is then shortly followed by a proposed
> charter which *does* specify a technical direction, I think that's
> a somewhat different story.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF mailing list
> IETF@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf