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

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

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