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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

On 3/17/2015 12:17 PM, Osborne, Eric wrote:
> ...
> 	
>> on this overall model.  My point about the ADs is that the ADs can
>> decide/change what is in scope for a particular WG and therefore can direct
>> where such work is discussed / takes place.
> Normally I'd suggest taking the overall document to RTGWG and then announcing that parts will be covered in the appropriate WG, but RTGWG isn't until Thursday so the window will have closed by then.
Discussing the overall aspect of document in RTWG, if there's time,
sounds reasonable to me. 

> Could we just get a good chunk of time (30min?) in RTGWG to cover all the drafts?  
There too many interrelated docs to cover in a single meeting, for
example we have 70 minutes of wg-specific yang discussions on the teas
agenda.

> No matter what we do people are going to upset that things weren't discussed Their Favorite Way in Their Favorite WG, so can we aim to just minimize the number of cranky people?

or coordinate as much as possible before hand (hay, perhaps on this
list) to get folks in sync before the meeting...

Lou

>
>
>
>
> eric
>
>
>>>>>> Does this make sense?
>>>>> Makes sense to me. Just now we have a presentation on the MPLS
>>>>> agenda, since time is the scarce thing during the IETF week, I don't
>>>>> think we should present it more than in one place.
>>>> Actually, I may disagree.  I do agree that having popup discussions
>>>> on the same (overal structure) topic isn't too helpful.  But, I think
>>>> having the relevant portion of the document presented in the relevant
>> WG
>>>> (with some context of course) makes the most sense.   If your comment
>>>> was directed at the former, than I'm in complete agreement.
>>> I was thinking about repeating the same discussion in more than one wg.
>> So we're agreement that this isn't a good idea.
>>
>>> I'm struggling a bit to understand what you are saying. While I can
>>> understand the formula "relevant piece of the to the relevant wg",
>>> this is not what I see happening. What we have in the agendas posted
>>> today is that mpls and teas have slots, but you say the draft (or
>>> pieces of the draft) are relevant also at least to rtgwg, spring and
>>> i2rs, and there are currently no agenda slots for that discussion in
>>> those wg's, neither am I sure that splitting it up that much is most
>>> productive.
>>>
>>> To discuss the home(s) of the document, I think the entire scope
>>> should be on the able somewhere (at least on some table somewhere
>>> during the week).
>> In the long term, I suspect the document will morph into an overall structure
>> document with sub-models documented separately and by different WGs.
>> In the short term, I certainly hope not to hear about out of scope topics, e.g.,
>> LDP, in the TEAS discussion of the draft.
>>
>>
>>> So I'm wondering a bit about what instructions to give the authors for
>>> the discussion in mpls.
>>>
>>> We could tell them "give us some context, but for the rest keep to
>>> what is strictly relevant for MPLS" or we could say "give us some
>>> context, discuss what is relevant for MPLS and also bring up what you
>>> feel you has not had opportunity to discuss in any other wg during
>>> week and we will take this as a basis for discussing what will happen
>>> with the document on this list".
>> I'm hoping for the former in TEAS, but if course my co-chair has a say in this
>> too.
>>
>> Lou
>>> Currently I'm in favor of the second alterntive, but I'm open to
>>> discuss any other plan.
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>>> We have it on Friday, together with the rest of the mpls-yang
>>>>> discussion. We can keep it on our agenda and have every other group
>>>>> point to that discussion. Makes sense to me since we can use the
>>>>> week for off-line and mailing list discussion and try to come up
>>>>> with some educated approximation of a plan on Friday.
>>>> TEAS also has a slot on it's agenda for the draft.  My expectation
>>>> (as
>>>> chair) most of the time will be spent discussing the WG-related
>>>> portion of the document that overlaps other individual documents that
>>>> are also being discussed, and perhaps also how the in-WG scope models
>>>> tie into other models.  IMO omitting this draft from our Dallas
>>>> discussions would hurt WG progress on the topic.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not expecting to cover the out of scope portions of the draft in
>>>> our TEAS meeting in Dallas, and interest in the overall structure
>>>> discussion let me to start this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>>> /Loa
>>> <snip>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>>
>