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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lou
> Berger
> Sent: 11 November 2019 16:33
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-
> [e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: 05 November 2019 16:35
> >> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; NetMod WG Chairs
> >> <netmod- [e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]
> >> 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 <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: 05 November 2019 15:11
> >>>> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; NetMod WG Chairs
> >>>> <netmod- [e-mail]>
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]
> >>>> 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
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt