Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

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

Hi Kent,

I fully agree that an alignment of the charters and tuning of the timing is required.

I think it is very useful for the reader if protocol specific encoding and handling is put into the protocol specification.
I personally think 6241bis could wait on 7950bis as it is a basic document NETCONF refers.
We better do it less fast and consistently.

I also think that it makes sense to continue the discussion now but finalize it in a joint session in IETF #98.
I would actually go further and would like to suggest to have a discussion with the co-chairs of key WGs at IETF beforehand.

Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 9:51 PM
> To: Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>; t.petch <[e-mail]>;
> Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>; 'Benoit
> Claise' <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> 
> 
> >> Even updating 7950 I would expect to be resisted given how long it
> >> took to appear but for me, it is the only logical first step and not
> >> that difficult one, just tedious to proof-read.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> 
> As a NETMOD co-chair, I plan to start a preliminary 7950bis discussion in
> Chicago.  The scope of such an effort would be the key topic, but hopefully
> factoring out all the NETCONF and XML specific parts would be near the top
> of the list.  I know some think that we should not waste resources on
> housekeeping, but I believe that periodic cleanups are necessary to keep
> things running smoothly...
> 
> Of course, the XML-specific parts factored out of RFC7950 would go into
> another NETMOD WG draft (mirroring RFC 7951) and the NETMOD WG could
> ensure to run both the 7950bis and draft-ietf-netmod-yang-xml drafts at the
> same time (for as clean a cutover as possible).  However, it would be up to
> the NETCONF WG to pick-up the NETCONF-specific parts factored out of
> RFC7950, and it would be up to the NETCONF WG to decide to do this work
> now, or wait to do it in parallel with the NETMOD WG (whenever that might
> be), or wait until after 7950bis comes out.
> 
> While it seems like the NETCONF WG could kick-off this activity now if it
> wanted to, said activity is nowhere near as important as updating NETCONF
> WG maintained documents to support the solution defined in the revised-
> datastores draft (namely RFCs 6241, 7895, 8040).  Without said update, there
> would be no way for clients to access ephemeral configuration (i2rs
> requirement) or operational state (open config requirement).  So, this is
> clearly a higher priority, though it seems that the two could be done at the
> same time, as is captured by work item #7 in Mehmet's charter proposal.
> 
> So, my opinion is that Mehmet's proposal is nearly spot-on with its work item
> #7.  Yes, it’s a "monster", but it must be done ASAP or else we fail to deliver
> the datastore solution in a timely manner.  The only thing I hesitate on is that
> I don't think the WG has enough information to decide if it's better to work
> on new standalone drafts or -bis of existing drafts (this addresses Andy's
> point).  To the extent the charter describes changes being made to specific
> documents, it may be better to remove this part from the charter until more
> information is known.
> 
> PS: the next update to the revised datastores draft will contain an Appendix
> section for each RFC believed to be impacted, in both the NETMOD and
> NETCONF WGs, along with a proposal for how that RFC might be changed or
> updated.  The revised datastore authors plan to request a NETCONF WG
> presentation timeslot to go over the impact to NETCONF WG drafts, with the
> intent of asking the WG how to proceed (e.g., standalone NETCONF WG
> drafts or -bis on existing drafts).  So, we'll be having this discussion then, can
> the charter wait that long?
> 
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
>