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

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 19, 2015:12:13 PM, at 12:13 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lou and Loa,
> 
> Thanks for your focus and concern on this.  
> 
> I share very similar concerns about how to handle the interactions and structure between different
> YANG models.  In fact, I am in the process of setting up a routing area design team to write
> up a routing yang architecture.  This may also include common conventions and recommendations
> for how to handle information to be used by multiple models and so on.

	Rather than an architecture, I'd suggest something more along the lines of a template for building models.
There are a number of reasons why an architecture is the wrong approach here IMHO, but firstly
time-to-market is of the essence. We don't want a clan of people spending the next 18 months chugging out
what is in effect, a theoretical guide or pattern for how we build models.  Secondly, we have a proposal
on the table from a bunch of operators that have built and are actually using the models proposed.
I would hate to push that aside for what becomes again, a theoretical discussion that takes
18 months and produces a document.   To be honest, the best approach for this would be a wiki page
that gets pinned on the Yang Doctor's wiki, if you ask me. 

	--Tom


> At the Routing WG Chairs lunch, one of the topics will be discussing how to coordinate and handle
> the various proposed YANG models and the overlaps.
> 
> One of the useful aspects of this particular model is that it's looking at it from a "what does it do for me" perspective instead of a "here's what the protocol knobs are".  Of course, that doesn't address many 
> of the questions around multiple uses of the same technology for different purposes or how to handle
> different feature sets being implemented.
> 
> I am somewhat reluctant to request breaking up of a model into multiple drafts simply to accommodate
> the IETF Working Group structure - if it doesn't also improve the models or make it easier to get really
> good reviews.
> 
> So, in short - let's have some good discussion on this, work towards having an architecture with meta-model
> for at least routing, and see what makes the most sense.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alia
> 
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Lou,
> 
> I take this to mean:
> "Yes, we can take the discussion as suggest below in Dallas, but we also
>  need a discussion on the [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, possibly before,
>  during and after the Dallas meeting."
> 
> I agree to that!
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> On 2015-03-19 14:59, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/19/2015 6:04 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
> All,
> 
> This of course triggered the obvious question - "What is your plan"?
> 
> So what I'd like to to see for draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model
> discussions in Dallas is
> 
> - that the discussion on the overall structure goes to the rtgwg
> 
> - that the technology specific parts are discussed in the relevant
>     working group; it see the following wg's that (should) have an
>     interest in this
>     - teas
>     - mpls
>     - spring
>     - i2rs (?), this might be more of an interest in the overall
>       structure.
> 
> For mpls this discussion will take place on Friday, if we during the
> week can agree on a plan forward, and we need time to socialize that
> I think there are a few minutes available in the mpls meeting do that.
> 
> So the general questions I see / have, which are wider than the scope of
> this draft, are:
> 1. how does the whole control plane (including te+non-te signaling and
> routing) picture fit together and relate to other/existing models?
> 2. how do all the different topology/service models fit together?
> 3. What is the commonality in the data plane models of MPLS and GMPLS
> (LSPs)?
>     (Yes this assumes that there isn't a full model per controlled
> technology.)
> 
> I think different WGs are/can be involved in addressing these.  As I
> said before, I personally care more about these being discussed then
> where they are discussed.  I like your plan as it provides a place to
> catch any topics not already covered earlier in the week.
> 
> In the interim, it would be good to start on the actual discussions on
> this (or whichever appropriate) list.
> 
> Lou
> /Loa
> 
> 
> 
> On 2015-03-19 10:24, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I have not seen any reaction to this, what is the plan?
> 
> /Loa
> 
> On 2015-03-18 17:45, Lou Berger wrote:
> Sounds like there's a plan afoot to give rtgwg time to discuss this
> thread/draft (as well as relive some of the overall time constraints. )
>     My understanding is that the overall structure  &  base document will
> be discussed there, while the other WG-specific information / sub-models
> (e.g., LDP, RSVP, TE, SR, ...) will covered in their respective WGs.
> 
> Alia/ADs/Authors,
> 
> Can you confirm?
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> On 3/17/2015 12:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> RTGWG agenda is already jam packed - no room for any additions.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone] <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <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