IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 02 April 2019 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109BF1204E8 for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=RwV6yQWi; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=QjlAkzGD
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 Rex7LcS7nOEN for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBAF612022B for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 05:55:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2292; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554209728; x=1555419328; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=tMtyWmpj76QXGeWHZh4bAOeWaH4Pw8Xe2FJ0mxEoRY4=; b=RwV6yQWiYjkjUMOXkeoiOzc0GjyNoro/KvvQVZ+6zOIWeamlqc2bgnEb fyFo0mDKIveVmbWAq3H2WDuX2tOvY27WW3wdM9iny8Z2BIMPR3kX4f9jM Hbj7pBaO+fpf0Ru/9lC6j8bRNxRWdJcDb31Kk1RoIojASFtTZvqO7rk/M 4=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:TwiewhEVNtHXeCgUt0NkvZ1GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7IYmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1A3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNVcejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeTwZiw/FcJqX15+9Hb9Ok9QS47z
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AEAAAuW6Nc/5FdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBPSQFJwOBXAQLJ4QOg0cDhFKKYoJXlxGBLoEkA1QOAQEshEACF4UlIjQJDQEBAwEBCQEDAm0cDIVLAQUjEQwBATcBDwIBCA4KAgIfBwICAjAVEAIEAQ0FH4MDgV4DFQEComkCihRxgS+CeQEBBYURGIIMCIELJAGLMheBQD+BEScfgkw+hEQXI4JQMYIEIo0FmFIJApNmEweUOItGk1wCBAIEBQIOAQEFgU04gVZwFWUBgkGCCjZtAQmCQYpTcoEojzEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,300,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="540595900"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 02 Apr 2019 12:55:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x32CtQAK014711 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:55:26 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:55:25 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 07:55:25 -0500
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-002.cisco.com (64.101.210.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 08:55:24 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tMtyWmpj76QXGeWHZh4bAOeWaH4Pw8Xe2FJ0mxEoRY4=; b=QjlAkzGDnq7J7FhnPQlztKKVADVpDhqSPQDNTDHQTtKhy6uehkwE8z2+xDKmpyjxf8wq7QTqxAgS8bPcstZHwro7Wh84wNKRlTBEXz/5+T4GVfAOWlTG+eODLPmoMXucYG0L3ro3b/HejzfKl1hUKsZBNFlII65tz1gh1U7zFUY=
Received: from MN2PR11MB3695.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.156) by MN2PR11MB3678.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.252.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1750.20; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:55:23 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB3695.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8467:9ef7:d982:e972]) by MN2PR11MB3695.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::8467:9ef7:d982:e972%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1750.017; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 12:55:23 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
CC: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
Thread-Index: AQHU6IgQA7HL/03TbEq10Y0hkyvEi6YoooiAgAAK1ACAAEnFAA==
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:55:23 +0000
Message-ID: <EECE5222-029C-4FBD-A74B-3ED96F3D91A2@cisco.com>
References: <9FACB29E-7E8C-4FDB-B45F-9002AC891113@cisco.com> <FD6BB1BD-E1DE-4117-BC0E-F3A3847DA26B@chopps.org> <c691b0e1a8c64b1c8a31070f0d600fc8@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <6974CC7A-9CC2-4621-A0C5-FBF2C3E34E4A@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <6974CC7A-9CC2-4621-A0C5-FBF2C3E34E4A@chopps.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.6.190114
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2001:420:2840:1250:2421:2f0a:1dbc:638e]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4b2caa2e-0d06-49a4-b5f0-08d6b76a7887
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:MN2PR11MB3678;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB3678:
x-ld-processed: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e,ExtAddr
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB36789FC79686C8D8D98B409CAB560@MN2PR11MB3678.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 0995196AA2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(189003)(199004)(51444003)(76176011)(25786009)(2616005)(476003)(6506007)(316002)(46003)(99286004)(186003)(33656002)(14444005)(58126008)(36756003)(93886005)(86362001)(106356001)(6116002)(105586002)(256004)(54906003)(2906002)(110136005)(4326008)(14454004)(6486002)(53936002)(6512007)(6436002)(83716004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(305945005)(82746002)(102836004)(486006)(478600001)(5660300002)(11346002)(53546011)(446003)(229853002)(8936002)(81166006)(6636002)(81156014)(7736002)(97736004)(8676002)(6246003)(68736007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:MN2PR11MB3678; H:MN2PR11MB3695.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: B94S/UkFdCKMgYSgDdJ7Qik4mPXvIGDPpGpVhaMCLPJZWsI9Z/SYq316pCv3MIAB3445udaLUyl9ppPcaIPEPofovRrRvgAv4b9ErNTOJB8o8jhHUYUQ05S+pY9VlExey2kNyhXeK6OnvnwxvuzukRCVmH3HSQB61dvBVHKKcDPDwUgVA7Sb3KvX3GP2yZbOr4lMD8wJy0zaGKTAQhNDk3iokGmV4n6E81X8HW5wOkTRhECOkhDDZ1xiNvMIlc0wHaGMW+4AbFdPULSlYAOCJhdfs2WmYZABeJNs4LxXBEP69WCZ1UUvF32x+0GBtgK3gSmzxJ4lPbh/s3Zok0FCTAc7jGiQuRdnT373pmlMPh9Ya5M2hydalhXsqtF2tAohVm85GdCHOviGUgHRx3k7uK0nLRxYjZkTZFNcGcPfcUU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C4CA6C077CC5EC4482940EFD4DC147C8@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 4b2caa2e-0d06-49a4-b5f0-08d6b76a7887
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Apr 2019 12:55:23.4549 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB3678
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/j1wykxQP7q5YISuHY5xseYDC8YY>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2019 12:55:38 -0000

On 2019-04-02, 6:31 AM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Christian Hopps" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
    > On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:52 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
    > 
    > Hi Chris,
    > 
    > I don’t think that there is a one size fits all answer here.
    > 
    > If the enhancement is small, and is likely to be reasonably widely used then my view is that adding it as an optional feature to the base module is a better choice in the long term.
    > 
    > If the feature is larger, or esoteric, and perhaps won’t be widely deployed then I would think that putting it into a separate module might be a better choice.
    > 
    > I actually think that it is the IETF process that is perhaps the difficult thing here.  I.e. I think that you want to republish a new revision of the base module, but in a way that gets processed more quickly by the IESG.  E.g. request that they only review/comment on the diffs between the current revision and the previous one.  Or somehow publish an updated revision of the module on github without assigning it a new RFC number every time.
    
    Yes, although I'm trying to do a couple things:
    
    - Get YANG management support added at the same time as the functionality, not as an after thought maybe someday, maybe never.
 <RR> Chris, I think this is very important and should be "strongly encouraged". Now that many base YANG modules in routing etc are close to being published, new drafts should have YANG module included. E.g. draft-ietf-bfd-unsolicited. Unfortunately I don't think this is yet common practice.

Regards,
Reshad.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email