Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

["Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>]

> Back to your question, it seems obvious to me that YANG and the XML
encoding rules naturally belong to NETMOD, the 'NETCONF protocol details
that NETCONF 
> did not define' naturally belong to NETCONF.

Basically it is our aim to make the YANG language specification generally
applicable to all protocols and to put protocol-specific details into the
protocol specifications.

Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> university.de]
> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 2:35 PM
> To: t.petch <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Mehmet Ersue
> <[e-mail]>; 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>; 'Benoit Claise'
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> 
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 12:24:34PM +0000, t.petch wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 8:14 PM
> >
> > > > Kent
> > > >
> > > > 7 is a monster because of the XML encoding rules, not because of
> > > > the revised datastore concepts.  And datastores, as you say, are
> > > > more important - revising the XML encoding rules is cosmetic, not
> > > > needed technically and, as I said, only make sense when the NETMOD
> > > > WG has
> > done
> > > > its bit; and the revised charter being discussed on the NETMOD
> > > > list makes no mention of this work.
> > > >
> > > > So scrap NETCONF XML encoding rules.
> > > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > Such changes fall under the "maintaining" clauses in the NETMOD
> > charter:
> > >
> > >   a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This effort entails
> > >      periodically updating the specification to address new
> > requirements
> > >      as they arise.
> > >
> > >   d) Maintaining encodings for YANG modeled data.  This effort entails
> > >      updating encodings already defined by the NETMOD working group
> > >      (XML and JSON) to accommodate changes to the YANG specification,
> > >      and defining new encodings that are needed, and yet do not fall
> > >      under the charter of any other active IETF working group.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> > I was going to be sarcastic but resisted the temptation:-)
> >
> > I am unable to reconcile those paragraphs with
> >
> > 'NETCONF XML Encoding Rules from RFC 7950 will be moved to
> > RFC6241bis.'
> >
> > To me, they are on different planets; one puts XML encoding rules in
> > the NETCONF WG and the NETCONF RFC, the other places them in the
> > NETMOD WG and the NETMOD RFC.
> >
> 
> YANG today defines the language plus its data encoding rules into XML plus
> NETCONF protocol details that NETCONF did not define (and the reason is
> simply that YANG was done after NETCONF and nothing else).
> 
> I think the goal is to move the NETCONF protocol details that NETCONF did
> not define to the NETCONF specification. Some may want to factor out the
> XML encoding out of the YANG specification as well, similar to how we have
> JSON as a separate document. On the hand hand this makes sense, on the
> other hand it makes it a bit more difficult to write examples down in the
> YANG specification (since the examples then depend on another external
> specification - or one would have to create yet another ad-hoc notation
> (YAAN).
> 
> Back to your question, it seems obvious to me that YANG and the XML
> encoding rules naturally belong to NETMOD, the 'NETCONF protocol details
> that NETCONF did not define' naturally belong to NETCONF.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>