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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Loa,
    See below.

On 3/17/2015 4:09 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Lou, Josh, et.al.,
>
>
> On 2015-03-16 23:26, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>> see below.
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 2:51 PM, Joshua George wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the note and kind words.
>>>
>>> We've been nearly exclusively focused on the content and structure of
>>> the draft so far, and haven't yet given a lot of thought to the
>>> administrative component of it.
>> a very reasonable approach.
>>
>>> Our initial thought was to present to both mpls and teas, and then
>>> decide based on the feedback where to direct updates.
>>>
>>> However, we'd be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions you have on
>>> finding the right home for it. Please let us know.
>>>
>> It's not clear to me that there is/should be one home for the whole
>> scope of the draft. Parts are clearly within the scope of a single WG
>> (e.g., segment-routing specifics seems to belong in SPRING,
>> unconstrained-path and LDP seems to belong in MPLS, and
>> constrained-path, and RSVP seems to belong in TEAS) while the overall
>> structure will need a home and could fall into the scope of a few
>> different WGs (perhaps RTG WG, I2RS or ???).
>>
>> >From my personal perspective I think it's most important to agree on an
>> overall structure that allows the different WG groups to make progress
>> in parallel.  I suspect the right folks to contribute to such an
>> agreement are already on this list.
>>
>> Which working group drive's the process is a bit secondary to me, and I
>> think the ADs ultimately get to make that call.
> Hmmm - make the call is fine, but I guess that this is and the union of
> the wg chairs of the wg's you listed (teas, mpls, i2rs, rtg, spring,
> etc.) needs to try to converge before the call is made.

Not sure why,but I leave it to the ADs either way.

>> 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.


>
> 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
>
>> (Any other opinions out there? ;-)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> --josh
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Authors,
>>>
>>>      Nice bit of work here. It has a pretty comprehensive scope and
>>>      touches a few wgs (mpls, teas, perhaps rtgwg...). Assuming your
>>>      plan is to stanardize this work, what are your thoughts / plans on
>>>      how you are going to break down the work into different pieces and
>>>      WGs?
>>>
>>>      Thanks,
>>>      Lou
>>>
>>>
>>>      --- Forwarded message ---
>>>      From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      Date: March 9, 2015 6:49:56 PM
>>>      Subject: I-D Action: draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00.txt
>>>      To: <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>      directories.
>>>
>>>
>>>             Title           : MPLS / TE Model for Service Provider Networks
>>>             Authors         : Joshua George
>>>                               Luyuan Fang
>>>                               Eric Osborne
>>>                               Rob Shakir
>>>              Filename        :
>>>      draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00.txt
>>>              Pages           : 47
>>>              Date            : 2015-03-09
>>>
>>>      Abstract:
>>>        This document defines a framework for a YANG data model for
>>>        configuring and managing label switched paths, including the
>>>        signaling protocols, traffic engineering, and operational aspects
>>>        based on carrier and content provider operational requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>>      The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model/
>>>
>>>      There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>>      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00
>>>
>>>
>>>      Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>      submission
>>>      until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>>      tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>>>
>>>      Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>      ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      I-D-Announce mailing list
>>>      [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>>      Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>>      or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>