Re: [Taps] finishing things

["Holland, Jake" <[e-mail]>]

I mostly agree, with a caveat.

A couple of notes as author:

  *   I’d be willing to continue this work as a WG item if the WG would like to adopt it, especially if it means some people will review and assist :)
  *   I think it’s not currently mature enough to integrate into an imminent last-call draft (particularly as regards the security parameters, as mentioned previously on-list, but likely some other areas are weak as well)


And my caveat, not as author but as wg participant:
Although I agree it would be nice to avoid blocking progress on the other drafts, I wouldn’t be surprised if a wider detailed review and discussion of the yang model could bring to light some ambiguities that have been overlooked in the existing drafts, particularly taps-interface.  In that sense, it might make sense to get started quickly, if we intend to do this.

  *   note that the same is true as more-complete API implementations are developed, regardless of whether as a wg the issues are tackled with the yang model.  (The exercise of applying a new level of rigor and specificity to the abstractions written in the current draft is what’s likely to generate some insights that might be best applied to text of the draft, not the yang model specifically).
  *   This is a point in tension with the goal of wrapping up the existing drafts.  Not sure how to handle it, but publishing taps-interface without first trying to nail down specifics in some detail, IMO, will dramatically increase the chances that we’ll need to issue errata or live with regrets on the published language on taps RFCs.  Maybe that’s fine, there are many imperfect RFCs, but worth thinking about.

Best,
Jake

From: Aaron Falk <[e-mail]>
Date: 2019-11-18 at 10:28
To: tom petch <[e-mail]>
Cc: taps WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Taps] finishing things


On 17 Nov 2019, at 22:48, tom petch wrote:

I am not sure which three you have in mind but suspect that it does not
include
draft-jholland-taps-api-yang

Tom Petch

Thanks for bringing this up, Tom. Note that TAPS hasn’t adopted this draft as a working group item. We have some options. It could be absorbed into one of the TAPS docs if a) folks thought it was in-scope and sufficiently useful and b) it was mature enough. If not, we could consider adopting it in TAPS as a new work item. I’d prefer that it did not slow down completion of the 3 wg drafts. Thoughts?

--aaron