Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 28 March 2017 01:44 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AABE12762F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6JRFRxXsNvMA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE4321296D1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21598; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490665472; x=1491875072; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RdrzcDyjsOdTej5xwuYSh2MfURQzldkODWZxPVVYymo=; b=CV/Xh3spefQODOYN3ZBy/qFk/UjUmLIMHLxrfx0zFHc0XZasVS85XdMi EbwsY88ubqngONeDHBoXBBhrzlh/+440OHd8bl4uqO7qAlAjffCEEtwVV 84yeIVAJ+5YU3zdR5CVTfEuOk4Emp/AYEzNZD/JuSJdcLPquXRiJGyIld E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AUAQC8v9lY/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1RhgQuNcZFQiBeNNIILAx8LhS5KAoMePxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQMBARgeNgQHDAQLDgMEAQEBDBsHIQYfCQgGAQwGAgEBF4lUAxUOrjmHNw2DCwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhk6CBYFhgQmCPRSHaAWJHgWHPYtBOoZ7hxuENoF8hSqDNCOGNIhXghZiiBYfOIEEJBYIFxVBhFgdggEiNYltAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,234,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="400959691"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Mar 2017 01:44:26 +0000
Received: from [10.82.212.25] (rtp-vpn4-1049.cisco.com [10.82.212.25]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2S1iP6U024924; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:44:26 GMT
To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'Kent Watsen' <kwatsen@juniper.net>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <B6359563-0649-453A-B29F-28375F2BD3A4@juniper.net> <0830e87c-ee4f-bf53-2c51-96c166d3955e@cisco.com> <9A9AD440-953D-46D4-9207-97619D054912@juniper.net> <9d7b60aa-1690-c598-7034-2e430c7a8e0a@cisco.com> <3C31A53A-6818-451E-9BEF-5E568C4DCB65@juniper.net> <030A7AF8-BA6E-4622-B008-F9624012C972@juniper.net> <EA565264-DBFE-4122-8E38-91307253300F@juniper.net> <01c601d29855$94b70470$be250d50$@gmail.com> <e3527c28-8c9f-9ef2-9b09-767b389f5dc5@labn.net> <02e701d29d93$0e770480$2b650d80$@gmail.com> <675654fd-1532-1755-621c-a3ecb06950e3@labn.net> <025a01d29e82$8549d070$8fdd7150$@gmail.com> <d890d3fc-782f-1eee-652d-51c7f8fae26c@labn.net> <02c901d29f70$fd0cbe30$f7263a90$@gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <cab52a89-f160-6e96-4e80-d6a82456d793@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 20:44:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <02c901d29f70$fd0cbe30$f7263a90$@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FqobsG0eNfMC4AZgXvI9S2Yc0Qs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 01:44:36 -0000
Mehmet, As long as the WG items are in the milestones, we're good. Regards, Benoit > 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 <lberger@labn.net>; 'Kent Watsen' <kwatsen@juniper.net>; >> netmod@ietf.org >> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani' >> <mjethanandani@gmail.com> >> Subject: RE: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal >> >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net] 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 <lberger@labn.net>; 'Kent Watsen' >>>>>>> <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>> Cc: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>; 'Mahesh Jethanandani' >>>>>>> <mjethanandani@gmail.com> >>>>>>> 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:lberger@labn.net] >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 11:28 PM >>>>>>>> To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>; 'Kent Watsen' >>>>>>>> <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>> 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:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>> Kent >>>>>>>>>> Watsen >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:45 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> 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 <lberger@labn.net> >>>>>>>>>> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Operations and Management Area Directors: >>>>>>>>>> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>>> Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Operations and Management Area Advisor: >>>>>>>>>> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Secretary: >>>>>>>>>> Zitao (Michael) Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mailing Lists: >>>>>>>>>> General Discussion: netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>>>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> > > . >
- [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal t.petch
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal t.petch
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- [netmod] FW: draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal t.petch
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal t.petch
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Susan Hares
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal Benoit Claise