Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Oct 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
>>>>>>>>>>>> to IESG
> Another question is whether this should be earlier, e.g. August.
> As it is a high-priority topic needed at least by 2 WGs,
Agreed. This should be earlier.

Regards, Benoit
> we were saying that revised-datastores should be finalized within 4 months and NC/RC-bis will take another 4-5 months.
>
> Thanks,
> Mehmet
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kent Watsen [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:48 PM
>> To: Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Lou Berger' <[e-mail]>;
>> [e-mail]
>> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <[e-mail]>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>
>> Hi Mehmet,
>>
>>  From a charter perspective, we have:
>>
>>   a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This effort
>>      entails periodically updating the specification to address
>>      new requirements as they arise.
>>
>>  From a milestone perspective, you are correct that we don't have a
>> milestone for 7950bis as of yet.  We do, however, have a "YANG Next"
>> discussion on the agenda, which may or may not lead to the creation of a
>> milestone for it.
>>
>> As for NETCONF/RESTCONF revisions depending on a 7950bis, if that is true,
>> then it will likely force us to create the milestone in the near-term for it.  That
>> withstanding, I think that NETCONF WG could take the lead by
>> moving/copying the NETCONF-specific parts from RFC7950 into an rfc6241bis.
>> It would be nice if we could decouple the refactoring of these documents
>> across our WGs.
>>
>> Kent // co-chair hat
>>
>>
>>
>> -----ORIGINAL MESSAGE-----
>> Hi Kent, Lou,
>>
>> as I see 7950bis has not been mentioned in the charter text and the
>> milestones.
>> As you know NETCONF and RESTCONF revisions are dependent on the timing
>> of 7950bis.
>> How is this essential deliverable and its timing going to be addressed in the
>> charter?
>>
>> Mehmet
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mehmet Ersue
>>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:51 PM
>>> To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; 'Kent Watsen'
>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <[e-mail]>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'
>>> <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: RE: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>
>>> Hi Lou, Kent,
>>>
>>> I promised to provide some minimal text which can be used as WG item
>>> description.
>>> I'm fine with any fine tuning.
>>>
>>> See below:
>>>
>>>     a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This effort entails
>>>        periodically updating the specification to address new requirements
>>>        as they arise. ADD<This work is planned to address with a
>>> revision
>> of RFC
>>> 7950./>
>>>
>>>     b) Maintaining the guidelines for developing YANG models.  This effort
>>>        is primarily driven by updates made to the YANG specification.
>> ADD<This
>>> continuous effort has been recently addressed with a revision of RFC
>> 6087./>
>>>     c) Maintaining a conceptual framework in which YANG models are used.
>>>        This effort entails describing the generic context that in YANG
>>>        exists and how certain YANG statements interact in that context.
>>>        An example of this is YANG's relationship with datastores.
>>> ADD<The revised datastore draft will provide a conceptual framework
>>> for the
>> handling
>>> of datastores, which can be adopted by other WGs for their usage
>>> scenario./>
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>>     e) Maintaining YANG models used as basic YANG building blocks.  This
>>>        effort entails updating existing YANG models (ietf-yang-types and
>>>        ietf-inet-types) as needed, as well as defining additional core YANG
>>>        data models when necessary. ADD<The WG will finalize ongoing
>>> work on the models for Syslog, ACL and Common Interface Extensions as
>>> well as the model for hardware management. The Schema mount draft will
>>> provide a mechanism to combine YANG modules into the schema defined
>> in
>>> other YANG modules./>
>>>
>>> BTW: There is no topic description (in a)-f) covering YANG module
>>> classification.
>>> I assume it can be added with a sentence to a) or b).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mehmet
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Mehmet Ersue
>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:59 PM
>>>> To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; 'Kent Watsen'
>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <[e-mail]>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: RE: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>>
>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] Mehmet,
>>>>>     see below.
>>>>> On 3/16/2017 2:24 PM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>>>>> Lou,
>>>> . . .
>>>>>> I actually provided a very simple proposal. You guys can fill
>>>>>> the idea with minimal text better than me. I'm fine whatever the
>>>>>> text
>> is.
>>>>>> If you think the high-level topic description a)-f) does already
>>>>>> define the WG item clearly you can simply say "this is achieved
>>>>>> with WG
>>>>> item XY".
>>>>>> If not, you can keep the high-level focus text but set
>>>>>> additionally the borders of the WG item with a few concrete words.
>>>>> I really can't tell for sure, but it feels to me that this comment
>>>>> boils down to a style comment and you have a preference for
>>>>> different contents in the charter.  I'd like to be sensitive to
>>>>> this.  As our style differs, having a concrete proposal on
>>>>> specific text changes would be really helpful in us (and the WG)
>>>>> evaluating the changes you'd like to see.  Without such specific
>>>>> examples and think we're left with the charter as currently
>>>>> proposed.  Perhaps someone else who
>>>> has similar feelings can chime in and provide proposed text.
>>>>> Anyone else have any comments or proposed changes?
>>>> I think the wording depends on the time period is for which the
>>>> charter is prepared.
>>>> I can try some text once I have time tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>>>> I think the DS draft provides a conceptual framework for diverse
>>>>>> DS usage scenarios to be used by many protocols, where IETF WGs
>>>>>> may actually decide using a subset of the DS framework for their
>>>>>> purpose and for their protocol standardization.
>>>>>> Based on this the conceptual framework cannot be standardized as
>>>>>> it is but the protocols using a consistent subset have to be
>> standardized.
>>>>>> Following this consideration I think the intended status of the
>>>>>> DS draft should be changed to: Informational RFC If you agree
>>>>>> please indicate this change accordingly.
>>>>> I think Juergen's reply to your previous message highlights that
>>>>> there is a difference of opinion here based on the technical
>>>>> specifics of the draft.  My position as chair is that I'll support
>>>>> whatever makes sense based on the document produced by the WG.
>>>>> Today the document authors believe PS is appropriate, once we have
>>>>> a version that is stabilizing for LC -- which hopefully will be
>>>>> the next version or two
>>>>> -- then will be a good time to revisit this.
>>>> There are indeed different opinions concerning the goal of the DS draft.
>>>> I agree with the document introduction and see it as a conceptual
>>>> framework covering many usage scenarios.
>>>> Such a conceptual framework describing possible solutions is
>>>> informational in nature and is not relevant for standardization.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is as I think also important to avoid an overlapping
>>>>>>>> between NETCONF and NETMOD charters.
>>>>>>> I don't follow this point.  Certainly I'd hope that the
>>>>>>> protocol impact of revised DS are covered in a PS document,
>>>>>>> unless for some reason there are no "on-the-wire" changes
>>>>>>> needed.  TI wouldn't expect that the document status of the
>>>>>>> base revised data store document would
>>>>> impact that.  Do you?
>>>>>>> If so, how?
>>>>>> My comment is actually superfluous if you agree with my
>>>>>> considerations above.
>>>>>> The worst case would in my opinion happen if the DS conceptual
>>>>>> framework covering many high-level DS usage scenarios would be
>>>>>> attempted to standardize, which at the end would prescribe
>>>>>> protocol WGs what they should be standardizing.
>>>>> Yang presumes a certain set of functions for the protocols it
>>>>> operates
>>> over.
>>>>> I'm not sure why having a document that specifies this would be an
>> issue.
>>>> This is again an interesting discussion which SHOULD be discussed in
>>>> a joint session.
>>>> I don't have a strong opinion but it can be seen differently.
>>>>
>>>>>> In such a case the conceptual framework would most likely cause
>>>>>> a competing situation with protocol WG's goals and documents and
>>>>>> cannot be adopted successfully.
>>>>> If a protocol doesn't provide full support for yang (requirements)
>>>>> it can't fully support all yang features.  If your point is that
>>>>> when NetMod changes basic yang functions/operations that this
>>>>> might constrain the protocols (and related WGs) over which it
>>>>> operates, then I agree that this is the case. How could it be otherwise?
>>>> Usually modeling languages provide many language constructs and
>>>> people modeling models choose which one is best for their purpose.
>>>> The same applies to the DS concept framework. The protocol WGs would
>>>> like to have the freedom to choose the subset to adopt from the
>>>> protocol
>>> pov.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Mehmet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PS: I expect that most of the Netconf WG member read also the
>>>>> Netmod
>>>>>>>> maillist and therefor skip sending to both ML.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Mehmet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: Mehmet Ersue
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:36 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; 'Kent Watsen'
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <[e-mail]>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Lou,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The charters from the last couple of years don't have the
>>>>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>> status --
>>>>>>>>> at least the ones we checked.
>>>>>>>>>> I actually feel pretty strongly about this (which of course
>>>>>>>>>> can be easily overruled by our AD).  It's my experience that
>>>>>>>>>> premature discussions on intended status, i.e., before a
>>>>>>>>>> document is sufficiently
>>>>>>>>> mature, leads to process-focused arguments that detracts from
>>>>>>>>> making technical progress.  While once a document is mature
>>>>>>>>> and core direction/content is fixed, it is generally obvious
>>>>>>>>> what status is
>>>>>>>> appropriate.
>>>>>>>>> The charters from the last couple of years have a short WG
>>>>>>>>> item
>>>>>>>> definition,
>>>>>>>>> which would be IMO sufficient.
>>>>>>>>> You are right the intended status is not available since a
>>>>>>>>> few years, but
>>>>>>>> IMO it
>>>>>>>>> is part of the target definition and would be very useful for
>>>>>>>>> the draft
>>>>>>>> authors
>>>>>>>>> and WG members to regard.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be good to bring the high-level topics in relation
>>>>>>>>>>> to the WG
>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand this last sentence can you
>> rephrase
>>> it?
>>>>>>>>> What I meant is that the high-level topics a)-f) might be
>>>>>>>>> good as WG focus description but are not sufficient as draft
>>>>>>>>> target
>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>> If you think the high-level topic description is more or less
>>>>>>>>> the WG item definition, then we could simply write "this is
>>>>>>>>> achieved with WG
>>>>>> item
>>>>>>> XY".
>>>>>>>>> If not, we could keep the high-level focus text but set
>>>>>>>>> additionally the borders of the WG item with some concrete
>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: We agreed in diverse discussions that the DS concept
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> Informational in nature.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this should be corrected in the draft.
>>>>>>>>>> So this sounds like an objection to a specific document.
>>>>>>>>>> This is a fair point to raise, but in our opinion it is not
>>>>>>>>>> a charter impacting point or discussion.  If this is in fact
>>>>>>>>>> the issue you'd like to raise and discuss, lets do so under
>>>>>>>>>> a document specific thread, e.g.,
>>>>>>>> "Subject:
>>>>>>>>> intended status of revised-datastore".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am actually raising this point since November meeting.
>>>>>>>>> There are
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> threads where I explained why it is appropriate as Informational.
>>>>>>>>> The last thread I remember is at:
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1ju_CamUPnzCCeqmlFR5JH1
>>>>>>>>> 1xcY
>>>>>>>>> The recent position of NETCONF co-chairs is in
>>>>>>>>>
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oMBYwr5GMsmBfotKJ_2_cd
>>>>>>>>> 8qr5k
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Mehmet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 11:28 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Kent Watsen'
>>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mehmet,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2017 4:47 PM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Kent,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> we understand that this is how NETCONF charters are
>>>>>>>>>>>> structured, but it is not our practice,
>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK it was the NETMOD practice for the charters until today.
>>>>>>>>>> The charters from the last couple of years don't have the
>>>>>>>>>> intended status -- at least the ones we checked.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I actually feel pretty strongly about this (which of course
>>>>>>>>>> can be easily overruled by our AD).  It's my experience that
>>>>>>>>>> premature discussions on intended status, i.e., before a
>>>>>>>>>> document is sufficiently mature, leads to process-focused
>>>>>>>>>> arguments that detracts
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> making technical progress.
>>>>>>>>>> While once a document is mature and core direction/content
>>>>>>>>>> is fixed, it is generally obvious what status is appropriate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not ask
>>>>>>>>>>> more than written in the current charter.
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be good to bring the high-level topics in relation
>>>>>>>>>>> to the WG
>>>>>>>>> items.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand this last sentence can you
>> rephrase
>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the information is available at the top of each draft,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and also because
>>>>>>>>>> this information need not be fixed when the milestone is added.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe a WG charter should be self-sufficient covering
>>>>>>>>>>> the target definition and intended status of the WG items.
>>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise one can change the target for a WG item by simply
>>>>>>>>>>> editing the draft abstract anytime.
>>>>>>>>>> Per IETF process, all it ever takes to make a change in
>>>>>>>>>> document status is WG consensus, and then IESG and IETF
>>>>>>>>>> buy-in as part of the
>>>>>>>>> publication process.
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW: We agreed in diverse discussions that the DS concept
>>>>>>>>>>> is Informational in nature.
>>>>>>>>>>> I think this should be corrected in the draft.
>>>>>>>>>> So this sounds like an objection to a specific document.
>>>>>>>>>> This is a fair point to raise, but in our opinion it is not
>>>>>>>>>> a charter impacting point or discussion.  If this is in fact
>>>>>>>>>> the issue you'd like to raise and discuss, lets do so under
>>>>>>>>>> a document specific thread, e.g.,
>>>>>>>> "Subject:
>>>>>>>>>> intended status of revised-datastore".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mehmet
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: netmod [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>>> Kent
>>>>>>>>>>>> Watsen
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:45 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi NETMOD WG,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find below draft-4 having the following change:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   - added "(e.g., I2RS, RTGWG)" to a sentence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sue, Lou and I looked at the proposed charter and found
>>>>>>>>>>>> a sentence that nicely describes our WG's intent to work
>>>>>>>>>>>> with and support other WGs (beyond NETCONF), but we felt
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> text could be made more clear by adding in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> above-mentioned
>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Beyond this, and the existing a),
>>>>>>>>>>> b),
>>>>>>>>>>>> and c), we believe that the charter proposal covers our
>>>>>>>>>>>> support for I2RS,
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>>> you agree?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mehmet, regarding putting a short description and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> intended status
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> each draft into the charter, we understand that this is
>>>>>>>>>>>> how NETCONF
>>>>>>>>>>> charters
>>>>>>>>>>>> are structured, but it is not our practice, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> information is
>>>>>>>>>>> available at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> top of each draft, and also because this information need
>>>>>>>>>>>> not be fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> the milestone is added.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All, Any other comments?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Kent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Network Modeling (NETMOD)
>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charter
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Current Status: Active
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chairs:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Operations and Management Area Directors:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Operations and Management Area Advisor:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Zitao (Michael) Wang <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mailing Lists:
>>>>>>>>>>>>     General Discussion: [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>>     To Subscribe:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Archive:
>>>>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/
>>>>>>>>>>>> Description of Working Group:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     The Network Modeling (NETMOD) working group is
>>>>>>>>>>>> responsible for the YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>>     data modeling language, and guidelines for developing
>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>> models.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>>>>     NETMOD working group addresses general topics related
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the use of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     YANG language and YANG models, for example, the
>> mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>> modeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>     data into various encodings.  Finally, the NETMOD
>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>>>>     also defines core YANG models used as basic YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>> building blocks,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>     YANG models that do not otherwise fall under the
>>>>>>>>>>>> charter of any
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>     IETF working group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The NETMOD WG is responsible for:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG.  This
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> entails
>>>>>>>>>>>>        periodically updating the specification to address
>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> requirements
>>>>>>>>>>>>        as they arise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     b) Maintaining the guidelines for developing YANG models.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>        is primarily driven by updates made to the YANG
>>> specification.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     c) Maintaining a conceptual framework in which YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>> models are
>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>        This effort entails describing the generic context
>>>>>>>>>>>> that in
>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>>        exists and how certain YANG statements interact in
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>>>>>>>        An example of this is YANG's relationship with
>> datastores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     d) Maintaining encodings for YANG modeled data.  This
>>>>>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> entails
>>>>>>>>>>>>        updating encodings already defined by the NETMOD
>>>>>>>>>>>> working (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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     e) Maintaining YANG models used as basic YANG building
>>>> blocks.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>        effort entails updating existing YANG models
>>>>>>>>>>>> (ietf-yang-types
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>        ietf-inet-types) as needed, as well as defining
>>>>>>>>>>>> additional core
>>>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>>        data models when necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     f) Defining and maintaining YANG models that do not
>>>>>>>>>>>> fall under
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>        charter of any other active IETF working group.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     The NETMOD working group consults with the NETCONF
>>>> working
>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>     ensure that new requirements are understood and can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> met by
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     protocols (e.g., NETCONF and RESTCONF) developed within
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>     group.  The NETMOD working group coordinates with other
>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>> groups
>>>>>>>>>>>>     (e.g., I2RS, RTGWG) on possible extensions to YANG to
>>>>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>> new
>>>>>>>>>>>>     modeling requirements and, when needed, which group
>>>>>>>>>>>> will run
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>     process on a specific model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     The NETMOD working group does not serve as a review
>>>>>>>>>>>> team for
>>>>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>>>>>>>     modules developed by other working groups. Instead, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> YANG
>>>>>>>>>> doctors,
>>>>>>>>>>>>     as organized by the OPS area director responsible for
>> network
>>>>>>>>>>>>     management, will act as advisors for other working
>>>>>>>>>>>> groups and
>>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>     YANG reviews for the OPS area directors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Milestones:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Done     - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis to IESG for
>>>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Mar 2017 - Submit
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> IESG
>>>>>>>>>>>>                for publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Mar 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model to IESG
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Apr 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-entity to IESG for
>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Apr 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model to
>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG for
>>>>>>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Oct 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount to
>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG for
>>>>>>>>>>> publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Oct 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores
>>>>>>>>>>>> to IESG
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>                publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Dec 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang to
>>>>>>>>>>>> IESG
>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>                publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Dec 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-yang
>>>>>>>>>>>> to IESG
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>                publication
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
> .
>