Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))

Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com> Fri, 25 June 2021 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2735D3A077C; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mE5sY6VNclH9; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 969763A077E; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id b7so13067525ioq.12; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=4esx1M8KV9y6s8JaDEIjy8I5Ht+PDWlF+jCOKAFQLBc=; b=Yfk+nvBtPJt2cmVPY0W1mARinUNUSBsUpm2V77EKauQc/zMdlRHq8Stg1XH5HuHIeZ Bc1l8e6FjYmiWr//0O9SX10oJmLH77mUVAHFtewLu1QvGwuxPU7GdvzQ2TLlVqlWespI Bimjqei4qDWJpYw3D2UjGVRiwPVio0EnTqYfZInO8jA2EAMdAUX1TcKTwmmeauOejzst liguCrk6xI007p5tRsFwoOtm6xDuWQU2TgE9r6emkVbwzqGujV92arPALWuVKNs9OyiD yshjIRLME9D+HegqtN6O5fzFRTxBwYPix/4wC/5mQZYTkwUlt3Hw1ib3tXI6JlAGIQRo 74wA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date :message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=4esx1M8KV9y6s8JaDEIjy8I5Ht+PDWlF+jCOKAFQLBc=; b=V/t8eA+9JgtUhN/A3iyMQtjuVidCdBdCEs7YuAy69YK0mdGfFGDTBF5YSp7JJGK3b0 vzs97MW3ShzBg/gYIdJqfQMcYofpupnLWTpaTfzX8Qb2pG7ekEf3DVzP7BJt2319Lu1A MSkNQD3t3PFGbEzZwqky4ROe2QtEAjRy73vQ7ACm/EwtWCRQrXOldP2ldfydTsKX2VJm Ar+qEeaOT44bWZkYsqYw4rM9T6u+dqQOCCvadQUHOCwZ34Bcssfaqs1YoKZTY7NFDMiC AZlMdB3TLtyBwZoDlZ+mwGzmF2JOomhIpsH7BEm9SwTdFLPlNsrL+TR5FksXuvp3OMp2 NT0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531z/5b26NAWt1fx0mLC6Uf8TVuByGHwvCCnS6Wr2Ixd0900mBrS DwiOhiqb62FEz4H5nrNnV5k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8mQ9sny5lMMpEtK2D9Aq7chpuuKU90kzlVv6RFJ4WMhS7vlssP817QcSc1QwY40CnNyaDpw==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:cca6:: with SMTP id t6mr10251161jap.36.1624637170158; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k10sm3661481ion.38.2021.06.25.09.06.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))
Thread-Index: AQHXZ0Y34uG5r7k9zU26Y0u53a17zasfwTOAgAAQa4CAAbDmgIADZkij
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:06:05 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR1901MB2150C8681AFDFF6C67F89F89FC069@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
References: <3eff922ce57b4c7caa7e546f82a4d8be@huawei.com> <AM7PR07MB6248C0D9C5755474F6144574A0099@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <AM8PR07MB82959E8835E5971386C5FE4EF0099@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <AM7PR07MB6248096B36C509947C8C82B1A0099@AM7PR07MB6248.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>, <AM8PR07MB829503CB0E59695B4EE65E83F0089@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM8PR07MB829503CB0E59695B4EE65E83F0089@AM8PR07MB8295.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR1901MB2150C8681AFDFF6C67F89F89FC069DM5PR1901MB2150_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/8kB76YyAisLlrMNvaeALTDgqKzs>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:06:17 -0000

Hi all,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Ideally, we can distinguish TE tunnel from other type of tunnels from the prefix – i.e. ‘tetnl’. However, if concern is long prefix then I am OK with ‘tnl’ too.

Regards,
Tarek

On 6/23/21, 8:09 AM, "Teas" <teas-bounces@ietf.org> wrote:


Hi Tom,

I agree with the argument against the hyphen, it makes sense. Regarding "tnl" vs "tn" I still believe "tn" could be too misleading.

Maybe "tnl" without hyphen could be a good compromise between length and comprehensibility?

BR
Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Sent: den 22 juni 2021 12:19
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>; Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>; teas@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG prefix for
> flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming))
>
> From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> Sent: 22 June 2021 10:20
> Hi all,
>
> If adding one character is not a big issue I would suggest to go for -tnl, as -tn
> might cause ambiguity with a lot of other items, e.g. transport network, transit
> node, termination node...while the only thing I can think of for "tnl" is tunnel.
> I would reject all the other options for the good reasons brought up by Tom.
>
> <tp>
>
> Bear in mind that a prefix can appear 10 or more times in the path of an
> augment so additional characters mount up.  The choice of the terse te: and
> tet:, whether by accident or design, was inspired.  This also argues against the
> hyphen in the prefix as there are likely to be lots of hyphens in identifiers coming
> after the prefix in a YANG path and having a hyphen before the colon of the
> prefix may confuse ie augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/tet:te
>                /tet:information-source-entry
>                /tet:connectivity-matrices
>                /tet:connectivity-matrix/tet:path-properties
>                /tet:path-route-objects/tet:path-route-object
>                /tet:type/tet:label/tet:label-hop/tet:te-label
>                /tet:technology:
>       is better than, hyphens inserted, augment
> /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node/te-t:te
>                /te-t:information-source-entry
>                /te-t:connectivity-matrices
>                /te-t:connectivity-matrix/te-t:path-properties
>                /te-t:path-route-objects/te-t:path-route-object
>                /te-t:type/te-t:label/te-t:label-hop/te-t:te-label
>                /te-t:technology:
>
> Tom Petch
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
> > Sent: den 22 juni 2021 11:08
> > To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>;
> > teas@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for Tunnel models (was RE: YANG
> > prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix
> > naming))
> >
> > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Italo Busi
> > <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> > Sent: 21 June 2021 19:52
> >
> > Let's continue the discussion about the prefix to be used for tunnel
> > models, adding also TEAS WG since this discussion impact also the
> > ietf-te model
> >
> > There have been some negative comments from Tom against the current
> > prefix (i.e., "te" which would also lead to "otn", "wson" and "flexg"
> > in CCAMP tunnel
> > models) which is broader than just the te-tunnel
> >
> > The letter 't' is not possible because it has been already used for
> > topology (i.e., "tet", "otnt", "wsont", "flexgt")
> >
> > The only option to abbreviate tunnel I have seen so far are tn or tnl
> > with or without the hyphen: "tetn", "te-tn", "tetnl" or "te-tnl"
> >
> > I have a slight preference for "te-tnl", which would lead to "otn-tnl", "wson-
> tnl"
> > and "flexg-tnl" in CCAMP, but I am open to other opinions or better
> > proposals
> >
> > I have only a strong preference to close this issue as quickly as
> > possible :)
> >
> > Any other opinion or better suggestions?
> >
> > <tp>
> > I am losing track of the context, which modules are involved, but
> > assuming it is WSON, OTN. FLEXG (MW?, DWDM?) then I would prefer
> > '-tn' to '-tnl'  as it is shorter  and to 'tn' as it is easier to
> > read. 'tl' 'to' can be misread as 't1' 't0' in some typeface. ('tx' I often use but
> usually as transport or transmit not tunnel).
> > 'tu' I reject because it is consonants that are wanted not vowels in
> > such abbreviations,
> >
> > There are plenty of other topo in TEAS but I do not know which if any
> > will have a matching tunnel.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Italo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> > > Sent: giovedì 1 aprile 2021 17:40
> > > To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] YANG prefix for flexi-grid (was RE: FW:
> > > Proposal for YANG model prefix naming)
> > >
> > > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Italo Busi
> > > <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> > > Sent: 31 March 2021 16:49
> > >
> > > It seems that addressing this issue on a step by step has worked
> > > well for the topology models
> > >
> > > Let's then consider a second question/convention about the prefix to
> > > use for flexi-grid YANG model
> > >
> > > I think that "flexi-grid" (which would lead to "flexi-gt" for
> > > flexi-grid Topology) is a bit too long for a prefix
> > >
> > > I have not found any better option to shorten flexible other than
> > > flexi or flex. I think f is really too short to be meaningful and fx
> > > can be misunderstood as fixed as well
> > >
> > > Therefore, I think we can shorten it to either "flexig" or "flexg"
> > > (which would lead to "flexigt" or "flexgt" respectively for
> > > flexi-grid
> > > Topology)
> > >
> > > I have a slight preference for the latter option ("flexg" leading to
> > > "flexgt" for flexi-grid Topology) but I am open to other opinions or
> > > better proposals
> > >
> > > Any other opinion?
> > >
> > > <tp>
> > > I prefer flexg of the options you suggest.
> > >
> > > There is something un-English about flexig, it just sounds wrong,
> > > and flexigt is worse.
> > >
> > > (In passing, flex-g looks wrong to me with just one letter after the
> > > hyphen, it needs two).
> > >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > > Thanks, Italo
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: tom petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]
> > > > Sent: lunedì 15 marzo 2021 13:00
> > > > To: Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > > <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>rg>;
> > > > CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] FW: Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > >
> > > > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Daniele
> > > > Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > > > Sent: 11 March 2021 16:38
> > > >
> > > > as previously anticipated during the CCAMP session today, we will
> > > > ask the RFC editor to update the YANG model prefix for the WSON
> > > > topology to
> > > "wsont".
> > > >
> > > > Many thanks for sharing your thoughts and participating to the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > <tp>
> > > > I await the minutes with interest!
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile ccamp-flexigrid-yang is plain wrong.  Under IANA it
> > > > registers flexi- grid-topology whereas the when statements have
> > > > tet-flexig which I would characterise as ugly and uglier!  And I
> > > > seem to recall this is not my first post on the prefix in this I-D
> > > > which clearly is not ready for Last Call:-(
> > > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Daniele
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Daniele
> > > > Ceccarelli
> > > > Sent: den 15 februari 2021 16:17
> > > > To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; Italo Busi
> > > > <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>;
> > > adrian@olddog.co.uk
> > > > Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your feedback Tom.
> > > >
> > > > Working group, other opinions?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Daniele
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> > > > Sent: den 12 februari 2021 13:29
> > > > To: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>om>; Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > > <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>;
> > > > adrian@olddog.co.uk
> > > > Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > >
> > > > From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
> > > > Sent: 12 February 2021 09:02
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Daniele
> > > >
> > > > FYI: we are discussing these options also with TEAS experts:
> > > >
> > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d3d01972-8c4b2077-d3d059e9-
> > > > 86959e472243-ddf7de26918206cd&q=1&e=586b5fcf-a971-4d25-81f3-
> > > > 4c64316f0395&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftsaad-
> > > > dev%2Fte%2Fissues%2F125
> > > >
> > > > Let's see if we can get an agreement at least for these two drafts
> > > > which are in RFC queue:
> > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types
> > > > > ietf-layer0-types (l0-types) --->(l0-types)
> > > >
> > > > I think we can agree with this prefix since all the proposals are aligned.
> > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang
> > > > > ietf-wson-topology  (wson) --->(wson-topo)
> > > >
> > > > Here, I think we have two candidates: wson-topo and wsont
> > > >
> > > > I have a slight preference for wsont since it is aligned with tet
> > > > and nt prefix conventions used in RFC8795 and RFC8345 but I can
> > > > accept wson-topo (it could be seen as aligned with wson-tunnel or
> > > > wson-tnl prefix
> > > conventions).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > <tp>
> > > > Since TEAS already has its tanks on the lawn, I would go for wsont.
> > > >
> > > > Adrian expressed a preference for ...topo but I think that wrong
> > > > as it gets too long IMHO as with ethtetopo or else eth-te-topo
> > > >
> > > > Tom Petch
> > > > Italo
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Daniele Ceccarelli
> > > > > [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com]
> > > > > Sent: giovedì 4 febbraio 2021 09:14
> > > > > To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>om>; 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>;
> > > > > adrian@olddog.co.uk
> > > > > Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> > > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom, Adrian, all,
> > > > >
> > > > > The L0 types and the WSON topology drafts are now on hold. We
> > > > > can include them in the updated prefix naming.
> > > > > The RFC editor will delay processing these documents until the
> > > > > updated versions are available. The AD (John or Deborah) will
> > > > > need to approve the changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This will also affect the IANA registries, they have been informed as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > BR
> > > > > Daniele
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of tom petch
> > > > > Sent: den 3 februari 2021 17:44
> > > > > To: 'CCAMP' <ccamp@ietf.org>rg>; adrian@olddog.co.uk
> > > > > Cc: rkrejci@cesnet.cz
> > > > > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Proposal for YANG model prefix naming
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> > > > > Sent: 03 February 2021 12:12
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Proposal for YANG model prefix naming.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Radek and then Tom raised the issue of consistency in prefix
> > > > > >> naming based
> > > > > on
> > > > > >> the fact that the TE topology model uses 'tet' and the TE
> > > > > >> topology state model uses 'tet-s'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the starting point is a list of I-D/RFC and I see
> > > > > > some
> > > > > glitches in your list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > draft-ietf-client-signal-yang probably should be
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, typo.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see two flexigrid I-D but you only list one
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/documents/ looking
> > > > > at extant WG documents.
> > > > > Looks like draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-media-channel-yang expired
> > > > > almost 6 months ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > > wson-yang and l1types have been approved by the IESG so I
> > > > > > regard those as
> > > > > fixed
> > > > > > points that it is now too late to change and which we should
> > > > > > build around
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, colour me confused.
> > > > > I thought this whole thing came up in debate of the WSON YANG model.
> > > > > If that debate is now closed, let's all move on and not worry
> > > > > about any of this any more.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have seen more than one wson model
> > > > >
> > > > > There's an information model in draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-iv-info,
> > > > > but no data model.
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-tunnel-model expired almost 6 months ago
> > > > >
> > > > > > microwave seems to be missing
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang expired almost 18 months ago
> > > > >
> > > > > <tp>
> > > > >
> > > > > Adrian,
> > > > >
> > > > > The progress of I-D in the routing area can be erratic.  The
> > > > > fact that the IETF has expired the I-D does not mean that it
> > > > > will not come back to life - a whole raft of I-D that were
> > > > > produced in a rush just before the IETF meeting have just
> > > > > expired 6 months later and some are now being resuscitated,
> > > > > others will be in future, others will not.  Some re-appear
> > > > years later when their time has come.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me, an expired draft says that someone was interested enough
> > > > > to put in a lot of work and even if that work is not current,
> > > > > then it would be a short- sighted naming convention, although
> > > > > well in keeping with the traditions of the IETF, not to cater for such work
> in future.
> > > > >
> > > > > For myself, I like names that start with the most important
> > > > > property and for me, that is WSON. OTN, RSVP and so on, and that
> > > > > is the basis on which I reviewed them, and not the fact that
> > > > > they are te - the rival proposal is for te to be the centre of
> > > > > the universe around which everything revolves, regardless of
> > > > > which WG
> > > > > - TEAS, CCAMP, ... -it
> > > may be in.
> > > > I am not a fan of this approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom Petch
> > > > >
> > > > > CCAMP is currently working on plenty of YANG models, so it might
> > > > > be worth stepping back and getting the prefixes consistent
> > > > > across all of our
> > > > work.
> > > > > I'm not sure this is the most important thing on our list, and
> > > > > perhaps it would be better to discuss the colour of the bike
> > > > > shed, but to make sure that we do this just once, here is my attempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > My conclusion is that, although it would be nice to be
> > > > > consistent with using just a suffix of 't' to indicate
> > > > > 'topology', this becomes messy with some of the longer names,
> > > > > and it is clearer to always
> > use 'topo'
> > > > > (leaving the TE topology model as the odd one out).
> > > > >
> > > > > This proposal only extends to CCAMP YANG models, and I don't
> > > > > think this list can debate the wider scoping of prefixes, but I
> > > > > think it would extend well enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > The list shows...
> > > > > Draftname
> > > > > Modelname (currentprefix)--->(proposedprefix)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang
> > > > > ietf-eth-tran-service (ethtsvc)--->(etht-svc)
> > > > > ietf-eth-tran-types
> > > > > (etht-types) ---
> > > > > >(etht-types) ietf-trans-client-service (clntsvc)
> > > > > >--->(tclnt-svc)
> > > > > >ietf-trans-client-
> > > > > svc-types (clntsvc-types) --->(tclnt-svc-types)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang
> > > > > ietf-ext-xponder-wdm-if
> > > > > (ietf-ext-xponder-wdm-if)--->(ext-xponder-wdm-if)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang
> > > > > ietf-flexi-grid-topology (flexi-grid-topology)
> > > > > --->(flexi-grid-topo)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang
> > > > > ietf-l1csm (l1csm) --->(l1csm)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer0-types
> > > > > ietf-layer0-types (l0-types) --->(l0-types)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types
> > > > > ietf-layer1-types (l1-types) --->(l1types)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang
> > > > > ietf-optical-impairment-topology (optical-imp-topo)
> > > > > --->(optical-imp-topo)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang
> > > > > ietf-otn-topology (otntopo) --->(otn-topo)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-tunnel-model ietf-otn-tunnel (otn-tunnel)
> > > > > --->(otn-tunnel)
> > > > >
> > > > > draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang
> > > > > ietf-wson-topology  (wson) --->(wson-topo)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > > > =
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CCAMP mailing list
> > > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas