[OSPF] FW: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 21 October 2016 15:20 UTC

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions
Thread-Index: AQHSK623dKivFQOjBkyvZOtklZYqTKCzBeUA
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:20:19 +0000
Message-ID: <D42FA9F2.8485C%acee@cisco.com>
References: <9fcf23f2-d0f8-2426-9ba6-abef7725ca88@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <9fcf23f2-d0f8-2426-9ba6-abef7725ca88@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.200]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <180E86B6D6A3D6469CB076BF27486EB4@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/dmvwM0zea8GyQG7_JE8ZahMQayg>
Subject: [OSPF] FW: [netmod] Delay in publication request of routing-cfg and current -state conventions
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:20:29 -0000

FYI - this will allow us to move forward with our OSPF YANG model
publication. 
Thanks,
Acee 

On 10/21/16, 11:12 AM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger"
<netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:

>
>All,
>    Some may have noticed that there was a bit of a gap between the
>close of LC and the submission of the publication request for this
>document.  While it was gated by a minor update, the more significant
>reason for the delay was the consideration of how to proceed with models
>that contain the -state branch.
>
>As we're sure most are aware we have a design team looking at how
>datastores might be used to address the applied vs intended config [1]
>and the larger "OpState" discussion.  There also has been some
>discussion on proposals on how to proceed while their work is ongoing,
>including a proposal that I promoted - and this model presents the first
>opportunity to implement such.
>
>Based on a fair bit of discussion among the authors, chairs, AD and
>design team, we concluded that introducing a new model convention
>at this time really doesn't provide any substantive benefit and may in
>fact complicate future transition/upgrade approaches. This
>consideration is what resulted in the delay.
>
>The impact of this discussion on routing-cfg is no change.  The impact
>on -state conventions is that, for now, we (as chairs) feel that models
>being submitted for publication request by the WG should follow the
>conventions found in RFC7223 and the recommendations documented in
>6087bis section 5.23 [2].  This of course can be change through
>discussion in the WG, e.g., based on the output of the DT.
>
>Lou and Kent
>
>[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg16491.html
>[2] 
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-08#section-5.23
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>netmod@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[OSPF] FW: [netmod] Delay in publication request … Acee Lindem (acee)