Thomas, On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Thomas Narten <nar...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > It is NOT OK to tell anyone that they should not contribute a draft - > because > > it may muddy the water > > or for ANY other non-technical reason. Individual drafts or desire to > request > > WG adoption do not change > > this. I do not ever want to see or hear something like this on an IETF > > mailing list. > > Let me defend Acee here a bit and try to chart a course a bit more > down the middle. When a WG has an effort underway that is intended to > lead to a WG document (and that is what I read the current "design > team" effort to be), it is IMO often not helpful to have yet more IDs > submitted on the same topic. Rather than complementing the existing > work towards a concensus result, additional IDs can be a distraction > and require folk to spend time figuring out how the other ID relates > to the WG effort. I.e., it's much more constuctive to say "here is > what is defficient in the current model, and here is what I think we > should do instead". It is much less constructive to have a standalone > ID that (probably) overlaps with the other IDs and doesn't focus on > the *differences* from the other work that already has a head start. > First, I have been encouraging the routing WGs to work on and consider YANG models. I have been quite clear in discussing with Benoit that they should be homed in the Routing area and that I don't think it makes sense to create a separate working group to just work on YANG models. Second, the assumption that we have had with I2RS is that it will need different and possibly more limited models than would be used for configuration of a particular protocol. A reasonable approach could be doing the I2RS-specific models in I2RS and having them cross-reviewed in the relevant protocol working-groups. This is the path that, as I understand it, Sue was working on. It would allow review of the interactions between the different models for their I2RS aspects (assuming that the WG believes that there are some). Third, individuals have been working an individual draft (draft-yeung-netmod-ospf-01) for an OSPF configuration YANG model. This was discussed in OSPF last IETF. I agree that the updated draft, when posted, is likely to be an excellent candidate for the OSPF WG. However, regardless of whom may be working on writing draft-yeung-netmod-ospf-01 or who may have been going behind the scenes pushing and encouraging (and I am also quite happy and eager and encouraging to see good YANG models for routing functionality), this is not an official design team effort. Deliberately writing a competing draft may not be constructive. That is not what happened here and it was the combination of trying to incorrectly privilege an (expired) individual draft that was written to solve a different problem and asking for someone who had done work to produce a draft towards a different problem that caused me to be extremely displeased. I realize that one of the topics of discussion since the netmod interim has been whether it makes sense to have one YANG model that can be used by NetConf and I2RS for writing and reading. However, I have not heard discussed much less agreed upon that approach in I2RS and it is inappropriate to presuppose the answer and punt work that it is quite reasonable to assume (and examine to determine) will move the WG forward. > It is the case that the IETF mantra is "submit a draft", but frankly, > I think that is a bit of a sound bite that we would do well to not > spit out as often as we seem to because it too often misses what > really should happen, namely, how best to contribute to reaching > consensus in a WG. We have a huge problem today where there are > overlapping/competing drafts that WGs have to sort through. And in > many of those cases, additional IDs have very little additional > content than what already exists. But since we go around telling folk > to "submit an ID", we shouldn't be surprise that we get them beyond > the point of diminishing returns. (And I am NOT saying that the draft > at issue here is one of those.) > Please let's not try to conflate one specific case with its own concerns with generalities. That is not constructive. > In this case (and I personally don't have any skin in the game), it > seems to that both parties are making honest efforts to do the right > thing, but unfortunately, the state of play was not fully known to all. Yes, this is communication and clear communication is needed. > > Very very few drafts start perfect and different models have > > different perspectives. The IETF has a consensus process, as you > > well know of course, to resolve differences between perspectives and > > drafts. > > I didn't hear anyone say that consensus has already been called. My > take away is that we have a WG making an honest effort to move forward > in a particular direction and it is doing exactly what it should be in > terms of getting behind a design team effort. And IMO, once you have a > WG design team working on an effort, having others submit drafts in > the same space is not always what we should be encouraging people to > do. > There IS NOT a WG Design Team in OSPF working on the YANG model. There are individuals, whom were encouraged to work together, but that does not make it a design team. IFF there were an announced WG Design Team and IFF there were consensus in I2RS that I2RS would use exactly the same YANG models, then this point might hold water. Since neither are the case, I do not believe that it does so. > Does that mean we should not allow additional IDs? Of course not. Does > it mean we won't look at them and give them consideration"? Of course > not. But we should also be honest that if a WG has an official > document or has a DT working on a document, having additional > "competing" documents show up is often not the most constructive way > to contribute. Unless news IDs really are clear about how they relate > to the other efforts and what those other efforts are lacking. Yes - and official WG design teams are different from a group of individuals. To be extremely clear yet again, this is a group of individuals. Regards, Alia Thomas > >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
