Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

["Mehmet Ersue" <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

> 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?

I believe IETF WG charters need to be defined for a particular period of
time with a specific target for development.
The current charter proposal seems to provide a high-level WG focus
definition without time limits.
I think the WG items to develop in the planned time period need to be
defined at least minimally, at least as an indication.
This is the basis for me as a WG member by which I agree or object to the
approval of a charter proposal for the planned development period.

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.

> > 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.
I'm not sure whether your "okay" means the same as I meant.
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.

> > 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.
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. 

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
> >>>>
> >
> >
> >