Re: [netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion.

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into a multi-email back and forth
justifying point by point. The model is going on 2 years old now, I
think it works just fine for what operators need, and see no issue with
NMDA -- it should just work that was the point behind the NMDA design.

Thanks,
Chris.

Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe a meeting at this point is useful? It would consolidate things and
>> get away from the endless email threads.
>>
>> If this isn't already known to everyone. There are many people for whom
>> the length of time to market from IETF simple doesn't work in particular
>> with models. That's one big reason that openconfig exists. Sitting on
>> working solutions waiting for them to be perfect is just getting us
>> ignored by industry.
>>
>> In particular when I, Lou, et al. realized we needed a way to "mount
>> schema" for a clean VRF and VM solution, we thought this was a simple
>> thing and we could do it rather quickly -- the concept is just not that
>> complex. The idea was picked up by Martin and Lada who produced drafts,
>> and there were in fact some devil in the details and those got worked
>> out over longer than anyone wanted, but it is what it is.
>>
>> Now it seems we are supposed to wait a bunch longer on yet other works
>> in progress for as near as I can tell (could be wrong here as I just
>> don't have time to read the very long email threads that netmod
>> generates) capturing meta-data in a cleaner way than another.
>
> During the time since we started working on schema mount, we (the WG)
> have also defined the NMDA.  All we (the SM authors and others) are
> asking for is that schema mount is defined to be compatible with the
> NMDA.  This is something we (the IETF) currently require of all other
> drafts.
>
> The missing piece of this puzzle is the new YANG library.  During the
> interim in December a solution was picked.  This solution is
> documented in the latest draft, and a new version of this draft will
> be published next week, which we hope can go to WGLC.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> This does
>> *not* seem like a reason to stall this work any further.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>>
>> Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on Nov 6th.
>> >>
>> >> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>> >> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>> >> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>> >> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>> >> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>> >> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>> >> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
>> >
>> > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
>> > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
>> > *both* document authors?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>> >> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>> >> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>> >> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>> >> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>> >> that normatively reference the current draft.
>> >>
>> >> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
>> >
>> > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
>> > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
>> > than hand-waving.
>> >
>> > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
>> > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>> >
>> > Lada
>> >
>> >> we also agree
>> >> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>> >> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>> >> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>> >> supporting rfc7895bis.
>> >>
>> >> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and advancement.
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> netmod mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>