Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

	You are right that "community responsibility" is a bit nebulous. What we need to do is setup a community place or places where people can meet up online or in person (at relatively frequent intervals) to work on modeling. The open source communities do this via virtual and real "hackathons" -- which are what we've setup just as part of official IETF meetings. I set one up at the previous ODL dev meetup, and will do so going forward as well as part of a few well attended conferences. Other ideas (and help!) for these is appreciated. 

	--Tom

	
> On Dec 8, 2014:4:32 AM, at 4:32 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> In light of the numerous YANG models these days, there is the YANG doctors scaling issue. You're right, even if the number of YANG doctors recently increased, we need other venues to provide advice to YANG model designers. This should solve the issue of designing properly the YANG models. 
> On the other hand, there is a bigger issue, IMO: the proper coordination of those YANG models. This is not the YANG doctors responsibility. This can't be: see the YANG doctors scalability issue.  So who's responsibility is this? Simply asserting "it's the community responsibility" is the easy answer, but I'm afraid it will not work. 
> 
> Regards, Benoit
>> 
>> 
>>         One of the things that came up in a number of discussions I had in Hawaii and afterwards was around the coordination and encouragement topics. A number of people commented both during these discussions (and I think someone did during one of the Netmod sessions) that the “MIB Doctor” model we are using is not going to scale out to the numbers of Yang models that are in need of advice or review, nor will be scale in terms of progressing models through the IETF’s RFC process. The fact is that we simply do not have enough Yang Doctors to cover all of the models in question, despite our best efforts.   It is for this reason that I strongly encourage other venues of review and advice such as a continued “advice” or “Yangathon” session at each IETF meeting going forward, as well as encouraging a loosening of the interim WG meeting rules to encourage more meetings, as well as perhaps less formalized ones.  I also encourage the IETF to start pairing up with other organizations such as OpenDaylight, Openstack and OP-NFV and join their Yangathons there.
>> 
>> 
>>         —Tom
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>> On Nov 28, 2014:8:12 AM, at 8:12 AM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Jari,
>>> 
>>> Let me open the discussion.
>>> What is important at this point in time is the coordination of those YANG models.
>>> All of them come at the same time, and this required some urgent attention.
>>> Focusing on the routing YANG models with "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord> is a step in the right direction. Indeed the community needs to agree on how to model IGPs, BGP, the topology, etc...
>>> However, the coordination should also occur with the data models developed in other IETF WGs. And the IETF might need to reach out to different SDOs/consortia. 
>>> As the operators told me: we can't afford to develop those data models independently from each others.
>>> 
>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>> Thanks for writing this article, Benoit!
>>>> 
>>>> The wave of new data models is obviously interesting and exciting. But I wanted to open a discussion with you all on what we should do with regards to serving this need better. Is there something that we could do better at the IETF to be able deal with this new work?
>>>> 
>>>> Jari
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>