Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Mehmet,

On 03/15/2017 09:50 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> Hi Lou, Kent,
> 
> it appears to me the issues I raised below are not closed.
it wasn't clear from your mail that a response was needed as it seemed
to be covering points otherwise discussed, and where we may not agree.
It's good that you are re-raising them now.

> 
> I believe at least a "minimal" WG item focus formulation is required to
> match to the high-level WG focus topics in a)-f). I was thinking my proposal
> below is acceptable.
> 
I think we disagree on this point.  That said, perhaps our objection is
in the abstract and not the specific.  Can you propose specific text
change you'd like to see made to the charter and we can discuss it?

> Netconf WG will ensure avoiding double-work concerning the DS concept draft,
> however Netconf needs to specify what is required for the use of the DS
> concept from protocol standards pov.

okay.  I think we agree that the protocol aspects belong in NetConf -
and we're expecting those to be covered during the NetConf WG session in
Chicago.

> That said different people including Netconf WG co-chairs think the DS
> concept document is Informational in nature and should be published as an
> Informational concept to be used in and adopted for the needs in diverse
> protocol WGs. 

okay.

> 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?

> 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
>>>>
> 
> 
>