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

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

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.

>
>>> 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.

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).

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".

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
>

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]