Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] [netmod] NETMOD 106 Schedule and Call for Presentations

we have plenty of time, so this won't be a problem!

On 11/11/2019 1:16 PM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Okay ... I'll see if I can put together a rough draft before next week.  If I manage to do this, then I might request a last minute schedule change to add 15 mins to verbally outline the solution.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Netmod-ver-dt <netmod-ver-dt-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lou
>> Berger
>> Sent: 11 November 2019 16:33
>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-
>> chairs@ietf.org>
>> Cc: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] [netmod] NETMOD 106 Schedule and Call for
>> Presentations
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We discussed this today.  Our preference would be for a thin/minimal draft
>> covering the tooling and the output showing the intended direction for the
>> work and for this to be included in the set adoption call.  It really
>> doesn't have to be complete /much -- just enough to show intended
>> direction.  Hopefully this is minimal enough effort for it to be submitted
>> quite rapidly.
>>
>> Does that work for you?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lou (Joel and Kent)
>>
>> On 11/5/2019 11:43 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>>> Ack.  Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
>>>> Sent: 05 November 2019 16:35
>>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; NetMod WG Chairs
>>>> <netmod- chairs@ietf.org>
>>>> Cc: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] NETMOD 106 Schedule and Call for Presentations
>>>>
>>>> I'll discuss with my co-chairs. I think this is also fair to raise at
>>>> the meeting...
>>>>
>>>> On 11/5/2019 10:49 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>>>>> We might like to ask you (the chairs) to reconsider the discussion
>>>>> as to
>>>> whether we can do a call for adoption on some of these drafts?
>>>>> I know that the chairs have previously wanted to adopt the drafts as
>>>>> an
>>>> entire set to cover the whole solution.  And we are obviously still
>>>> missing the draft of schema comparison tooling.  Arguably this draft
>>>> isn't required for the solution, only strongly desirable to have
>>>> because it is only intending to address requirement 2.2 (which has
>>>> always been a SHOULD rather than a MUST):
>>>>>           2.2  A mechanism SHOULD be defined to determine whether data
>>>>>                nodes between two arbitrary YANG module revisions have
>> (i)
>>>>>                not changed, (ii) changed in a backwards-compatible way,
>>>>>                (iii) changed in a non-backwards-compatible way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, there is no intention of dropping this last draft, and we
>>>>> already
>>>> have some pyang tooling/scripts that perform this task, but I think
>>>> that it could also realistically follow on a bit after the other
>> drafts.
>>>>> All the "MUST" requirements are intended to be addressed by the set
>>>>> of
>>>> drafts below.
>>>>> Personally, I think that these 4 drafts are all in good enough shape
>>>> that they could be considered for an WG adoption call:
>>>>>      draft-verdt-netmod-yang-solutions-02
>>>>>      draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
>>>>>      draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01
>>>>>      draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-02
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this draft is also well on its way to be ready for WG
>>>> adoption:
>>>>>      draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-01
>>>>>
>>>>>      - IMO, the key bit that we still need to figure out for this
>>>>> draft is
>>>> exactly how packages are sensibly put together (e.g. for optional
>>>> feature sets and bugfixes) in a way that doesn't defeat one of the
>>>> main benefits of packages for clients (i.e. being able to know the
>>>> exact device schema offline without having to download/check the
>>>> entirely of YANG library on connection).  But equally I see no reason
>>>> why that couldn't be figured out after the document as been adopted as
>> a WG item.
>>>>> Finally, doing an adoption call on these drafts may act as a forcing
>>>> function to get the WG to discuss/agree whether this solution is on
>>>> the right path.
>>>>> Of course, it is your decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Rob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
>>>>>> Sent: 05 November 2019 15:11
>>>>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>; NetMod WG Chairs
>>>>>> <netmod- chairs@ietf.org>
>>>>>> Cc: netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] NETMOD 106 Schedule and Call for
>>>>>> Presentations
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the headliner -- so should have the time ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/4/2019 4:49 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>>>>>>> 1) DT Update overview & status update (10 mins, Rob?):
>>>>>>> YANG Module Versioning Requirements
>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-versioning-reqs-01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YANG Versioning Solution Overview
>>>>>>> draft-verdt-netmod-yang-solutions-02
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Updated YANG Module Revision Handling (10 mins, tbd?):
>>>>>>> draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) YANG Semantic Versioning (10 mins, Joe?)
>>>>>>> draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4) YANG Packages (25 mins, Rob)
>>>>>>> draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-02
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5) YANG Schema Version Selection (25 mins, tbd?)
>>>>>>> draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-01
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
>>> Netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
>> Netmod-ver-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt