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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

On 3/17/2015 11:46 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Lou,
>
>
> On 2015-03-17 16:01, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Loa,
>>      See below.
>>
> <snip>
>
>> Not sure why,but I leave it to the ADs either way.
> Hmmm - the work you been doing here - driving the consensus in the
> involved working groups are for the wg chairs, if we need a higher
> level of "calling the consensus" that might be for the ADs.

As I said before, portions of the information (or sub-models) covered in
the document clearly are within the scope of a single WG (e.g., SR, LDP,
RSVP-TE ...).  The draft also has an overall model that ties all the
sub-models together.  I can't speak for other WGs, but I don't think
it's within scope of TEAS to work 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.

>>>> 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
>>