[netmod] Live meeting? and my opinion. [Re: moving forward with schema mount]

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. This does
*not* seem like a reason to stall this work any further.

Thanks,
Chris.

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> 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
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod