Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

On 3/8/2017 12:57 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> I agree with Mehmet, any changes to the NC/RC protocols should be done 
> in the NETCONF WG.
>
+1.

Regards, Benoit
>
> K.
>
> On 3/7/17, 3:15 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Mehmet Ersue" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf 
> of [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> I personally prefer to publish such NC/RC add-ons in NETCONF WG as 
> they belong together.
>
> I would like to suggest to discuss on the maillist and let NETCONF WG 
> decide in Chicago.
>
> BR,
>
> Mehmet
>
> *From:*Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 7:36 PM
> *To:* 'Mehmet Ersue' <[e-mail]>; 'Andy Bierman' 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' <[e-mail]>; 
> 't.petch' <[e-mail]>; 'Netconf' <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
> Mehmet:
>
> Sounds like a good plan to do the RESTCONF additions for I2RS in I2RS.
>
> How do we make this official?   Should we do the same for NETCONF 
> additions for I2RS?
>
> Sue
>
> *From:*Mehmet Ersue [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 12:34 PM
> *To:* 'Susan Hares'; 'Andy Bierman'
> *Cc:* 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; 't.petch'; 'Netconf'
> *Subject:* RE: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
> Hi Sue,
>
> providing add-ons which don’t require republishing of RESTCONF-8040 
> would be indeed important.
>
> I don’t mind if add-ons to RESTCONF specific to I2RS are done in I2RS.
>
> However forcing serious reviews early and publishing them in NETCONF 
> would be my preference.
>
> In any case we need I2RS people working on it.
>
> BR,
>
> Mehmet
>
> *From:*Susan Hares [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:27 PM
> *To:* 'Andy Bierman' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Cc:* 'Mehmet Ersue' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 
> 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 't.petch' 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Netconf' 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> *Subject:* RE: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
> Andy:
>
> Thank you for the clarification. Since this is an Add-on and not 
> focused on the base specification, where should the Add-on 
> specification be worked on?  I2RS WG with final cross-review in 
> NETCONF?  It seems that NETCONF has lots of other work on the list.
>
> Sue
>
> *From:*Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 7, 2017 11:25 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares
> *Cc:* Mehmet Ersue; Juergen Schoenwaelder; t.petch; Netconf
> *Subject:* Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Susan Hares <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> Mehmet:
>
> These are clarifying question - not requests.
>
> Do the items #6 and #7 on the charter include revising the NETCONF and
> RESTCONF to serve as a control plane protocol that interacts with the I2RS
> control plane data store supporting the ephemeral datastore?   If so, 
> based
> on the WGs comments it seems key players (Andy Bierman for RESTCONF and a
> group of players for NETCONF) do not want this work to be done in the
> NETCONF WG.   Do I understand the sense of the mail list?
>
> My position is that I2RS features can be done in its own RFC without
>
> republishing the RESTCONF RFC. Since this functionality is
>
> optional-to-implement, a new protocol version is not required.
>
>     Sue Hares
>
> Andy
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue
>     Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 9:34 AM
>     To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'; 't.petch'
>     Cc: 'Netconf'
>     Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
>
>     > 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-
>     <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs->
>     > university.de <http://university.de>]
>     > Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 2:35 PM
>     > To: t.petch <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > Cc: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Mehmet Ersue
>     > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Netconf'
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Benoit Claise'
>     > <[e-mail] <mailto:[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]
>     <mailto:[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/>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netconf mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netconf mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf