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

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>; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <jclarke@cisco.com>; 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