Re: [Inventory-yang] 答复: NIMBY WG charter

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniele,

It is looking good! I just wanted to flag something early that might come
up later, is there any other inventory work in any other SDOs that we need
to worry about? Since you mention the alignment of terminology, is there
any actual effort to model the inventory already in place? Maybe if not in
YANG but in some other ways?

Hi Marisol,

I am not sure if citing a draft like this in a charter is a good idea! If
you have to include text you need to frame it in a generic manner!

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 11:00 PM Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
<mpalmero=[e-mail]> wrote:

> I've added one paragraph in the doc, that clarifies the usage and
> extension for the use cases of inventory.
>
> Please feel free to reworded/reduce it, or move it around.
>
>
>
> “How the inventory information is used is outside the scope of NIMBY. As
> an example, DMLMO
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palmero-opsawg-dmlmo/> and in
> particular ietf-lmo-assets YANG module supports the integration and
> extension to be harmonized with the different inventory approaches on how
> to address inventory use cases. Note: The process is explained in detail in
> Appendix A: ietf-lmo-example-mapping-XXX YANG modules accommodate the
> ietf-lmo-assets YANG module to any other inventory which might be required
> in the future to be referenced.”
>
>
>
> Many Thanks,
>
>
>
> Marisol Palmero
>
> *M: +34.629.634.595 *
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Inventory-yang <[e-mail]> on behalf of
> Camilo Cardona <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 15:33
> *To: *[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, 'Zhenghaomian'
> <zhenghaomian=[e-mail]>, 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu=
> [e-mail]>, 'Rob Wilton (rwilton)' <rwilton=
> [e-mail]>, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Inventory-yang] 答复: NIMBY WG charter
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> Yes, all you say makes sense to me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Camilo
>
>
>
> *From: *Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> *Organisation: *Old Dog Consulting
> *Reply to: *<[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 10:10
> *To: *'Camilo Cardona' <[e-mail]>, 'Zhenghaomian' <zhenghaomian=
> [e-mail]>, 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu=
> [e-mail]>, "'Rob Wilton (rwilton)'" <rwilton=
> [e-mail]>, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <[e-mail]>,
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *RE: [Inventory-yang] 答复: NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hi Camilo,
>
>
>
> I think this is a good question.
>
>
>
> Isn’t it the case that “inventory” is a step or stage in LMO? But isn’t it
> the case that Nimby is just focussed on the inventory, not how it is used,
> how elements are put into service or taken out of service?
>
>
>
> So, of course, I would not want to banish LMO and have no one work on it.
> But it seems (to me) to be a lot of feature creep to include it in Nimby.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the solution here is to explain (one line in the charter) the
> relevance and applicability of an inventory model to the LMO set of
> operations. That would make it clear how we expect the inventory model to
> be used, but not do the LMO work within Nimby.
>
>
>
> --- Just my opinion.
>
>
>
> A
>
>
>
> *From:* Camilo Cardona <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 29 March 2023 01:56
> *To:* Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu=[e-mail]>; 'Rob
> Wilton (rwilton)' <rwilton=[e-mail]>; 'Daniele
> Ceccarelli' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Inventory-yang] 答复: NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for all this work.
>
>
>
> I might not be grasping all the concepts clearly, but I feel LMO is not
> clearly fitting the group description and we are just trying to push it in.
> Should we better keep it out?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Camilo C
>
>
>
> *From: *Inventory-yang <[e-mail]> on behalf of
> Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian=[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 11:20
> *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu=
> [e-mail]>, "'Rob Wilton (rwilton)'" <rwilton=
> [e-mail]>, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[Inventory-yang] 答复: NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Some editorial from my side as well, can be summarized:
>
> 1)      Instead of considering only ‘installed’, do we also cover what is
> ‘planned’?
>
> 2)      The boundary between software and hardware is getting blurred.
> It’s okay to cover both of them but clarifications are needed;
>
> 3)       Besides working on the inventory model itself, the mapping
> between these models and the current network topology would be greatly
> useful. Will the WG consider the work on this?
>
>
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> Haomian
>
>
>
> *发件人**:* Inventory-yang [mailto:[e-mail]] *代表 *Adrian
> Farrel
> *发送时间**:* 2023年3月28日 8:49
> *收件人**:* 'Qin Wu' <bill.wu=[e-mail]>; 'Rob Wilton
> (rwilton)' <rwilton=[e-mail]>; 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *主题**:* Re: [Inventory-yang] NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Changes are just polishing words.
>
>
>
> Here are updates. I think the main thing left to do is fill in the
> placeholder for LMO text. I have no clues about this, so someone else needs
> to start the text.
>
>
>
> I hereby release the pen.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Inventory-yang <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Qin
> Wu
> *Sent:* 27 March 2023 15:26
> *To:* Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>; Daniele
> Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Inventory-yang] NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hi, Rob:
>
> Thanks Med, Oscar, Diego, Daniele, Adrian, Sergio, Victor, Italo, Marisol,
> Yuchaode, BoWu, many other team members.
>
> We have a second side meeting to go through NIMBY WG Charter, we have got
> all main proponents of each drafts  to review charter proposal paragraph by
> paragraph,
>
> Unfortunately due to time limitation, we only complete review the first
> four paragraphs, See attached,
>
> We will continue to polish the charter proposal. Marisol agreed to add
> additional pieces related to dmlmo which will add another layer on top of
> inventory model.
>
> Talking with many proponents,  we can continue to discuss on this thread, but we think it will be also great we can Strike while the iron is hot and
>
> have the third side meeting inventory yang during IETF week to reach
> agreement on the scope of inventory management.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Qin (on behalf of the team)
>
> *发件人**:* Inventory-yang [mailto:[e-mail]
> <[e-mail]>] *代表 *Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> *发送时间**:* 2023年3月27日 18:21
> *收件人**:* Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> *主题**:* Re: [Inventory-yang] NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Adrian, Daniele, thanks for putting this together so quickly. Sorry but I
> can’t make today’s follow up meeting as I have a clash, but some quick
> thoughts/comments in case you discuss this further.
>
>
>
> My main comment is that I think that the charter should be somewhat open
> as to whether this new WG directly progresses the technology specific
> augmentation drafts (with agreement of the technology specific WGs/Areas),
> or whether the drafts are taken to the technology specific WGs.
>
>
>
> I hope that this will help mitigate the potential question of whether why,
> if the WG is only producing one document, a whole new WG is needed.
>
>
>
> But really, I think that you had me sold with just the name. :-)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Inventory-yang <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Daniele
> Ceccarelli
> *Sent:* 27 March 2023 17:02
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Inventory-yang] NIMBY WG charter
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> as promised , here is a WG charter proposal that Adrian and I have put
> together.
>
>
>
> We might use the slot later this afternoon to discuss about it.
>
>
>
> Please note that in the milestones we identified a single draft but this
> doesn't mean that we are committing to have everything in a single
> document, if along the road we find that splitting the work in more than
> one document is needed, we might do so.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Adrian & Daniele
>
> -- Inventory-yang mailing list [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/inventory-yang
> --
> Inventory-yang mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/inventory-yang
>