Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] I-D Action: draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00.txt

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou and Loa,

Thanks for your focus and concern on this.

I share very similar concerns about how to handle the interactions and
structure between different
YANG models.  In fact, I am in the process of setting up a routing area
design team to write
up a routing yang architecture.  This may also include common conventions
and recommendations
for how to handle information to be used by multiple models and so on.

At the Routing WG Chairs lunch, one of the topics will be discussing how to
coordinate and handle
the various proposed YANG models and the overlaps.

One of the useful aspects of this particular model is that it's looking at
it from a "what does it do for me" perspective instead of a "here's what
the protocol knobs are".  Of course, that doesn't address many
of the questions around multiple uses of the same technology for different
purposes or how to handle
different feature sets being implemented.

I am somewhat reluctant to request breaking up of a model into multiple
drafts simply to accommodate
the IETF Working Group structure - if it doesn't also improve the models or
make it easier to get really
good reviews.

So, in short - let's have some good discussion on this, work towards having
an architecture with meta-model
for at least routing, and see what makes the most sense.

Thanks,
Alia

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Lou,
>
> I take this to mean:
> "Yes, we can take the discussion as suggest below in Dallas, but we also
>  need a discussion on the [e-mail], possibly before,
>  during and after the Dallas meeting."
>
> I agree to that!
>
> /Loa
>
>
> On 2015-03-19 14:59, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/19/2015 6:04 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> This of course triggered the obvious question - "What is your plan"?
>>>
>>> So what I'd like to to see for draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model
>>> discussions in Dallas is
>>>
>>> - that the discussion on the overall structure goes to the rtgwg
>>>
>>> - that the technology specific parts are discussed in the relevant
>>>     working group; it see the following wg's that (should) have an
>>>     interest in this
>>>     - teas
>>>     - mpls
>>>     - spring
>>>     - i2rs (?), this might be more of an interest in the overall
>>>       structure.
>>>
>>> For mpls this discussion will take place on Friday, if we during the
>>> week can agree on a plan forward, and we need time to socialize that
>>> I think there are a few minutes available in the mpls meeting do that.
>>>
>>
>> So the general questions I see / have, which are wider than the scope of
>> this draft, are:
>> 1. how does the whole control plane (including te+non-te signaling and
>> routing) picture fit together and relate to other/existing models?
>> 2. how do all the different topology/service models fit together?
>> 3. What is the commonality in the data plane models of MPLS and GMPLS
>> (LSPs)?
>>     (Yes this assumes that there isn't a full model per controlled
>> technology.)
>>
>> I think different WGs are/can be involved in addressing these.  As I
>> said before, I personally care more about these being discussed then
>> where they are discussed.  I like your plan as it provides a place to
>> catch any topics not already covered earlier in the week.
>>
>> In the interim, it would be good to start on the actual discussions on
>> this (or whichever appropriate) list.
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015-03-19 10:24, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> I have not seen any reaction to this, what is the plan?
>>>>
>>>> /Loa
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-03-18 17:45, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like there's a plan afoot to give rtgwg time to discuss this
>>>>> thread/draft (as well as relive some of the overall time constraints. )
>>>>>     My understanding is that the overall structure  &  base document
>>>>> will
>>>>> be discussed there, while the other WG-specific information /
>>>>> sub-models
>>>>> (e.g., LDP, RSVP, TE, SR, ...) will covered in their respective WGs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alia/ADs/Authors,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you confirm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/17/2015 12:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RTGWG agenda is already jam packed - no room for any additions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>