On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 05:53:08PM -0500, William Atwood wrote: >> No, I don't have anything specific---my expertise is not in software >> evaluation. I was just concerned that Jeffrey's comment implied that 3 >> Routing Area directors could solve this problem. > > Note that I didn't say that a third AD will solve this problem. I referred > people to the discussion about the motivations for adding one. > > In general, document review in IETF should follow a well defined process > similar to what is seen in many large software organizations: > - Reviewed by those working on it. (Authors) > - Reviewed by their peers. (Working Group) > - Reviewed by targeted experts, especially for cross-area work. > (Directorates) > - Reviewed for big-picture architecture. (IESG) > > Where things have the appearance of breaking down is when there has been > insufficient review at the lowest layers. WG chairs should not send along > documents for directorate or AD review without having some certitude about > the document being of high enough quality to do so. In project management > parlance, they're the gatekeepers. > > Yang modules, and MIBs before them, have a few interesting issues that > complicate the normal review process: > - Modeling as a discipline is something that not everyone is good at. IETF > tends to attract people who like working bits-on-the-wire, not management > and operations front-ends. > - The recognition and inherent rewards for participating in such models in > IETF lacks quite the same level of prestige from many people's > perspective. Basically, "it's not sexy". > - Review of models requires not only the depth of experience in the thing > being modeled, operations for that thing (which may not have practices if > it is new) but also strong familiarity with the modeling language and its > semantics. > + Yang is new. That's going to cause some bumps as people learn. > + As MIBs have demonstrated, sometimes it's less whether something is > syntactically or semantically correct, it's whether it follows a > best-practice style. Those styles are still evolving for Yang. > > If the above hold true, the likely fixes are: > - Get many more people familiar with Yang. > - Make sure as best practices evolve that they are rapidly and widely > disseminated. (See rtg-yang-coord as one example.) > - Provide the same level of prestige for doing this hard work as for doing a > new protocol. "Egoboo"/"Karma" is a valid currency in volunteer run > organizations such as ours, even though most of our membership tends to be > sponsored via their jobs. >
I also would like to clarify that my mail was in no way against the Yang work being done in i2rs, I have great respect in the draft authors, they are doing great admirable work. Regards, Behcet > -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
