Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Wed, 23 September 2020 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF7C3A0EF0 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:39:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 P4RHoxYiA4pS for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34FC3A0EED for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 02:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8B0C2EEE0FDA7F73D49B; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:39:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) by lhreml712-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.63) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:39:13 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:39:12 +0200
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:39:12 +0200
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common
Thread-Index: AQHWcaQSqOo2M+PRhUSG+GIByQcr2KlHE/eg///854CALyXkwA==
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:39:12 +0000
Message-ID: <c8afc5eeb5bc4b2ebc5fceee824357d8@huawei.com>
References: <207B8353-44AE-4231-9E7A-6F28169F433B@cisco.com>, <bee881b538d143baa8af57e9b39d62e4@huawei.com> <AM7PR07MB6248AB20281118BE48A7E0B6A0560@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM7PR07MB6248AB20281118BE48A7E0B6A0560@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.94.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/m9ncgBzKuruIFxmhOc8w6Oce4zw>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 09:39:20 -0000

Hi Tom,

I agree that revisions of this YANG model should follow the rules in section 11 of RFC7950.

I am proposing to select a name for the module which reflects it potential wider scope even if the first revision of the module has a limited scope. In this way, there is no need to change the module name to reflect a broader scope of future revisions.

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> Sent: lunedì 24 agosto 2020 13:37
> To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <jclarke@cisco.com>om>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-
> common
> 
> From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> Sent: 24 August 2020 10:56
> 
> I support the adoption of this draft as WG document
> 
> I think the scope of the draft/model can also be extended to be applicable to
> any service-type module and not being limited to only L2VPN and L3VPN. For
> example we can call it svc-common rather than vpn-common.
> 
> Regarding the approach, my preference is to include in the common module
> all the types/groupings which are common.
> 
> In order not to delay the progress of L3NM, it is possible to follow the same
> approach that has been followed in CCAMP WG with layer0-types: once L3NM
> is ready for WG LC, it is possible to move forward for WG LC only the common
> types/groupings which are needed by L3NM (as first revision of the common
> YANG module) and to move the types/groupings needed by other on-going
> work (e.g., L2NM) into a new draft which is intended to become a second
> revision of the common YANG module.
> 
> <tp>
> Italo
> 
> A point to be aware of is that there are rules about what you can and cannot
> do when revising a YANG module.  RFC7950 s.11 has a long list thereof of
> which those relating to enum and type have come up in the past.  If you want
> to do something that is not permitted, then you have to change the module
> name, which would seem to defeat the purpose of this particular exercise so it
> is important to get it right first time..
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> Italo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jclarke@cisco.com]
> > Sent: giovedì 13 agosto 2020 14:49
> > To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common
> >
> > Hello, WG members.  On the IETF 108 virtual meeting, Oscar presented
> > the status of the L3NM, L2NM, and the VPN common work.  While this VPN
> > common YANG module started as an individual document (per the chairs'
> > request), the L2NM and L3NM modules need to choose a direction for how
> > to handle common typedefs and groupings between them.
> >
> > On the virtual meeting we did a hum which indicated "Pianissimo" support.
> > Again, the hum system had some interesting rules, so this is not
> > conclusive, but seems to favor that this common module work should
> > exist as its own, standalone document that both L2NM and L3NM will
> > consume.  In this manner, one would not need to import either L2NM or
> > L3NM to make use of/extend these common attributes.
> >
> > To that end, the chairs would like a call for adoption of
> > draft-bgbw-opsawg- vpn-common.  Additionally, comments on the approach
> > and the choice of common attributes are welcome, especially from those
> > that were unable to attend the IETF 108 virtual meeting.
> >
> > This serves as a two week call for adoption ending on August 27, 2020.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Joe
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg