Re: [Lime] split draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam into two - one on data and one on methods/rpc?

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Hello Frank,

The definition of the model and the retreival method(s) should be in
separate documents.

Best regards, Huub.

--------------------
On 21-07-16 11:16, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> per the ask from Carlos as WG chair in the meeting: Would it make sense
> to break the draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam into two separate
> documents?
>
> ·       One on the data model itself
>
> ·       One on methods for data retrieval (the rpc definitions)
>
> Pros:
>
> ·       Yang models in the current document are already structured this
> way, i.e. one on data and one on methods/rpc
>
> ·       Enable clean reference in case additional retrieval methods get
> defined which are not netconf rpc based. E.g. one could think of
> retrieving data via IPFIX, Kafka, gRPC, etc. – but one would obviously
> still want to use the same data formats. Those additional retrieval
> methods would likely be defined in separate drafts, which would mean
> that longer term, we would have a clean document reference structure:
>
> o   Data model doc
>
> §  Current set of rpcs doc
>
> §  Additional retrieval method 1 doc
>
> §  Additional retrieval method 2 doc ..
>
> Cons:
>
> ·       Splitting the draft requires shepherding two drafts in lockstep
> – which requires additional work/supervision.
>
> ·       Updates to the documents would also need to make sure that data
> model and method documents (which might be multiple moving forward) are
> kept in synch.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks, Frank
-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...