Re: [Taps] finishing things

["Aaron Falk" <[e-mail]>]

I think your point about working on the YANG model may help validate or 
refine elements of the -interface spec but I think that will only happen 
if folks actually engage and work on it.  IMO this is part of a larger 
question of whether it is better to hold the documents to allow them to 
mature as for more implementation and, in this case, alternative 
analysis, or publish them and expect to revise them if TAPS gets 
traction and we learn from experience what we got wrong.  As I said in 
my earlier note, given what I see is diminishing energy in the working 
group I fear that waiting now will result in a reduced number of 
reviewers for WGLC and the associated conversations.  This is just One 
Person’s Opinion and I will of course defer to wg consensus on what to 
do but it’s my gut feeling we need to push for closure now.  
Discussion welcome.

--aaron

On 18 Nov 2019, at 11:55, Holland, Jake wrote:

> 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