[Isis-wg] Fwd: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions

<chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 26 October 2016 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5937A129B6C for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jv3a5EPgjC-j for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D8212941D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 06:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (97-83-46-222.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [97.83.46.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1257C60B5A for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:32:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 25.1.1
From: <chopps@chopps.org>
To: "isis-wg\@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:32:49 -0400
Message-ID: <87oa27b5ha.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/jva_vOfP7M4EfW9fRGo7JeTSt4w>
Subject: [Isis-wg] Fwd: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:32:55 -0000

Hi Folks,

This will clear the way for moving forward with IS-IS (and other
routing) yang model(s).

Thanks,
Chris.

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> writes:

> All,
>     Some may have noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the
> close of LC and the submission of the publication request for this
> document.  While it was gated by a minor update, the more significant
> reason for the delay was the consideration of how to proceed with models
> that contain the -state branch.
>
> As we're sure most are aware we have a design team looking at how
> datastores might be used to address the applied vs intended config [1]
> and the larger "OpState" discussion.  There also has been some
> discussion on proposals on how to proceed while their work is ongoing,
> including a proposal that I promoted - and this model presents the first
> opportunity to implement such.
>
> Based on a fair bit of discussion among the authors, chairs, AD and
> design team, we concluded that introducing a new model convention
> at this time really doesn't provide any substantive benefit and may in
> fact complicate future transition/upgrade approaches. This
> consideration is what resulted in the delay.
>
> The impact of this discussion on routing-cfg is no change.  The impact
> on -state conventions is that, for now, we (as chairs) feel that models
> being submitted for publication request by the WG should follow the
> conventions found in RFC7223 and the recommendations documented in
> 6087bis section 5.23 [2].  This of course can be change through
> discussion in the WG, e.g., based on the output of the DT.
>
> Lou and Kent
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16491.html
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-08#section-5.23
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod