[Netconf] The use of YANG 1.1 Features in NETCONF Drafts WAS: Summary and AIs from the NETCONF Session in IETF #92

["Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Dear NETCONF WG,

this email is to verify the opinion poll in IETF 92 NETCONF session concerning the use of YANG 1.1 Features in NETCONF Drafts.

As reported in the session summary below, the opinion poll for the use of YANG 1.1 features has been supported by 16 and disagreed by 1 person.
The disagreement was based on the assumption that the finalization of the YANG 1.1 draft may possibly take longer than currently expected.

Please speak up by April 1, 2015 23:59 PT, if you have objections to use YANG 1.1 features in current NETCONF drafts.
The co-chairs will declare consensus after the deadline.

Regards,
Mehmet

From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:01 AM
To: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
Subject: [Netconf] Summary and AIs from the NETCONF Session in IETF #92

Hi Benoit, NETCONF WG,

below is a summary and action items from the NETCONF WG session on March 24, 2014, Dallas, USA.
A Wiki version of this summary will be made available at OPS area Wiki page soon (at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/IETF92summary).

- We had approx. 90+ participants in the 2 hour NETCONF session,
- We reviewed the status of the WG (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-2.pptx),
- We had a discussion on 7 chartered documents.

- Note taker was: Lada Lhotka. The Jabber scribe was Mikael Abrahamsson.
Many thanks to the note takers and jabber scribe for volunteering.

The session agenda is available at: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/agenda/agenda-92-netconf

Following is a summary of the discussion and the decisions taken per show-hands.
If there is no strong objection we will implement as proposed.

*         Issues after the WGLC of the RESTCONF and YANG Patch drafts have been discussed. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-0.pdf and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-1.pdf.
*         Currently open issues for the YANG Library and RESTCONF Collection Resource drafts have been discussed. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-10.pdf and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-11.pdf.
*         A few issues are remaining and will be taken to the maillist. If there is no objection, the solution described on an issue slide will be realized as proposed. WG members are asked to speak up on the maillist if there is any concern on the proposed solution.
*         RESTCONF, YANG Patch and YANG Library drafts will go to 2nd WGLC a few weeks after IETF 92 once the drafts are available after issue solving.
*         WG co-chairs are asking the chairs of related WGs (e.g. Core, 6lo, 6tisch) to assign individuals as reviewer.

*         Issues after the WGLC of the Call Home and Server Model drafts have been discussed. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-4.pptx and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-5.pptx.
*         If there is no objection, the solution described on an issue slide will be realized as proposed. WG members are asked to speak up on the maillist if there is any concern on the proposed solution.
*         Call Home and Server Model drafts will go to 2nd WGLC once the drafts are available after issue solving and after finalizing the WGLC for the RESTCONF drafts.

*         During the discussion of the Server Model draft, the use of the YANG 1.1 features in current NETCONF drafts has been proposed. The opinion poll showed 16 yes, 1 no from Andy B.
*         AI: Co-chairs will send an email to the NETCONF maillist to verify the poll in the meeting.
*         The open issues in Zerotouch draft have been discussed briefly. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-7.pptx. Kent W. is discussing the details of the requirements on Zerotouch draft with ANIMA WG members. ANIMA WG is asked to agree on these requirements first in their WG before starting a discussion in the NETCONF WG based on a new draft or subsection in an existing draft.

*         I2RS co-chair Jeff Haas summarized the NETCONF-related issues discussed in I"RS WG, which are Pub-sub requirements, Ephemeral state, Secondary Identity, Priority, Transactions. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-8.pptx.
*         Ephemeral state is a particular issue important for I2RS WG. The volunteers for this issue (Dan B, Martin, Ken and Andy) will restart their work.
*         draft-haas-i2rs-netmod-netconf-requirements is serving as a tracking document for I2RS protocol requirements. Current requirements on ephemeral state are written down in the architecture draft.
*         Mehmet proposed a joint conf call to discuss the details of these issue in a joint conference call. AI: Mehmet to provide a doodle.

*         Eric Voit presented on draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements-01. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-9.pdf.
*         The related solution draft addressing these requirements has been presented by Alex Clemm. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-14.pdf. This draft is proposed to adopt in NETCONF WG. 12 have read the draft. 12 support the draft and 0 against.
*         Mehmet clarified that new WG items can be adopted after finalizing current active items. This will be possibly in IETF 93 time frame.

*         draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies-00 on Processing Multiple Replies for One Request in NETCONF has been presented by Guangying Zheng. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-3.ppt. 5 people have read the draft. 5 support adopting the draft. Will take it to the mailing list.
*         draft-mm-netconf-time-capability-02 on Time Capability in NETCONF couldn't be discussed due to lack of time. See https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netconf-13.pdf.
*         The chair suggested that both, draft-liu and draft-mm, should raise discussion on the maillist and get the support of the WG members.

Cheers,
Mehmet