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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 02 April 2019 12:29
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd: [Lsr]
> When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
> 
> "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: 02 April 2019 11:31
> > > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; YANG Doctors <yang-
> > > [e-mail]>; Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>
> > > Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Small modules discussion from LSR [Fwd:
> > > [Lsr]
> > > When to augment LSR base YANG modules...]
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 5:52 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton)
> > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree that this is definitely the right thing to do.
> >
> >
> > > - Reduce the cost of adding the YANG support. A stand-alone document
> > > is very expensive time and effort wise, separate IESG reviews,
> > > directorate reviews, last-calls.
> >
> > I agree.  And rev'ing the base ISIS YANG model is likely to be just as
> > expensive.
> 
> My suggestion was not to rev the base model, but have _one_ model with
> these "optional features", and rev that every time.

[RW] I'm not sure I see the difference.

Whatever minimal base draft that does the includes has to be updated if a new include is added or changed.

Where would that updated base be published?  Would that be included in the extension RFC?

> 
> > > I had wondered if we could use errata on the base vs doing a brand
> > > new bis version of the base module; however, this seems to be
> > > trading too much process overhead with perhaps not quite enough.
> > >
> > > To the first goal, I wrote that reverse metric module a couple days
> > > ago as an example. I have to wonder when or even if it would have
> > > gotten written (or the equivalent feature added) otherwise. Instead
> > > I suspect it would just get added into N vendors models as people
> > > move on to other things in the WG.
> > >
> > > In a perfect world I would add a YANG section to my functionality
> > > RFC that updated (not augment) the base module, but with augment
> > > style definition (i.e., so the entire huge base module doesn't need
> > > to be re-represented in the document). This would then cause the
> > > base document to get reissued with the changes. Sort of like IANA
> > > sections are capable of updating a registry.
> >
> > We almost want to just include a diff/patch to the base model into the
> > document.  This is actually a little bit like how IEEE 802 update
> > their documents, and then they periodically roll their updates into
> > the base model.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > So maybe your github idea is like this, we create a module
> > > definition registry where the most up-to-date module definitions go,
> > > and then RFCs can update that using something like (or exactly like)
> > > augment to document the changes to the module in the individual
> > > RFCs.
> >
> > Yes.  We want the review to only focus on the stuff that is new/added
> > rather than reviewing the whole module every time.
> >
> > Martin's suggestion of using submodules is another way to achieve
> > this.  E.g. the actual module definition is split over multiple RFCs,
> > but I'm not that keen on submodules and I suspect that this will make
> > them hard to read in future.
> 
> Note that we can "gc" the submodules and fold their contents into the main
> module, or perhaps a "top" submodule, when you have N submodules.

True.

> 
> 
> > I think that the real answer here is that YANG modules should not be
> > published in RFCs.  Yes, they should go through a similar formal
> > review process for changes to the modules but without the overhead of
> > reviewing every change as a new document.
> 
> Right.  This is longer term though, since it requires a process update!

Yes.

But, if we think that this is the right long term plan perhaps we should be writing up a draft to propose this to see what the WG reaction is?

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> 
> /martin