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

"Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com> Thu, 21 July 2016 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC9112DBDD for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.807
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.807 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 QUIYRJir7iML for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9318F12D0AC for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13845; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1469092570; x=1470302170; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=w77KiMrbYffeHl1k7nFzWVASNr2EtESQcDfQBeP9ss8=; b=fVUghO7CkcQB630PywRqMg7iDec9CVhZrdISnGJgu/4MzLXsVqNNMQFy Fs3KLFcdMETCyWZBFBo/NH9+3xz2DNKNZqC6lkpuxOVkvnto9T8M+giYf 34gcbIa6OG2QrVZ6zRmJMPeLej22XU8vWmVYo22ZqiTxqhp8Ca5Pza4DS E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AyAgDqkZBX/5pdJa1dgnFOVoECs1qFBIF7h0g4FAEBAQEBAQFlHAuEYy1eAYEAJgEEG4gon3adTAEBAQEGAQEBAQEihiqOaAWORYphAY5jj0GQIAEeNoI+gTWHR38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,398,1464652800"; d="scan'208,217";a="299658163"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jul 2016 09:16:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (xch-aln-010.cisco.com [173.36.7.20]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6L9G9DT032286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <lime@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:16:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) by XCH-ALN-010.cisco.com (173.36.7.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:16:08 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com ([173.37.102.18]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:16:08 -0500
From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
To: "lime@ietf.org" <lime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: split draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam into two - one on data and one on methods/rpc?
Thread-Index: AdHjLe4nZn8FkD+dRSqk7LxlFtLo/w==
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:16:08 +0000
Message-ID: <c1ed48a5f63d4af885d2401c8d868edb@XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.166.151]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_c1ed48a5f63d4af885d2401c8d868edbXCHRCD008ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/O3qdzLx5EiMQliy7Xs7sJ_SMZDY>
Subject: [Lime] split draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam into two - one on data and one on methods/rpc?
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:16:13 -0000

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