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

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric, 

On 3/17/15, 12:17 PM, "Osborne, Eric" <[e-mail]> 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.
>
>Could we just get a good chunk of time (30min?) in RTGWG to cover all the
>drafts? 

RTGWG agenda is already jam packed - no room for any additions. The
results of the Encap design team will be presented there which is taking
up a large slot but there are also a number of proposed YANG models.

Talk to you in the Big “D”,
Acee 



> 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>> >>
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord