Kent - I’m assuming the poll is EST given that is where you are located. Thanks, Acee
On 2/3/16, 8:50 AM, "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: > >No problem, I just created another poll for the following week: > > http://doodle.com/poll/byugp4umy2m4fwdz > >The first poll is now deleted. For the couple of folks that put values >there, please fill in your values again on this new poll. > >Kent > > > > > >On 2/3/16, 6:59 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> >>On 2/3/16, 1:18 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 03 Feb 2016, at 03:24, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> [Chair hat on] >>>> >>>> Given the number of competing/complementing drafts involved, and the >>>>general lack of discussion on any of them, a virtual interim meeting >>>>might be an expedient way to proceed. In fairness, we know that there >>>>has been some discussion, but it hasn’t been picked up yet in a big >>>>way, >>>>and now Lou has an updated draft. >>>> >>>> The chairs discussed maybe scheduling one for a couple weeks from now, >>>>perhaps Thursday Feb 18 starting at 10am EST? I'm thinking >>> >>>Thursday at this time doesn't suit me very well, Monday till Wednesday >>>of >>>that week are OK. >> >>I’m out the entire week of Feb 14th. >> >>Thanks, >>Acee >> >> >>> >>>Lada >>> >>>> about this slot only since it worked for us for previously. Is this >>>>a >>>>good time slot? I assume to schedule for 2 hours, with a plan to end >>>>early if needed - makes sense? We also need to put together a >>>>proper >>>>agenda, perhaps the following? >>>> >>>> 10 min: RTG DT YANG Arch team use-case summary >>>> 20 min: draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model >>>> 20 min: draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl >>>> 20 min: draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount >>>> 50 min: general discussion or end early >>>> >>>> >>>> We hope to schedule the meeting itself tomorrow or the next day, so >>>>please respond quickly to this email if possible. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kent and Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/2/16, 2:04 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger" >>>><netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lber...@labn.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I thought it would be worth summarizing what we're looking for in our >>>>> draft, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-02 (note new version in >>>>>case >>>>> you missed it) with respect to the draft-lhotka-netmod-ysdl and >>>>> draft-bjorklund-netmod-structural-mount drafts. This is just my view, >>>>>so >>>>> my co-authors may wish to chime in and correct me. >>>>> >>>>> I'd be interested in hearing from the authors of YSDL and >>>>> structural-mount, or anyone else for that matter, on how they see to >>>>> best meet these needs. >>>>> >>>>> Here's what I think our draft needs: >>>>> >>>>> 1. that there be a mechanism that allows the incorporation (or >>>>> 'mounting') of the data model defined by one top-level module >>>>> within another module. >>>>> >>>>> The implication here is that when information is instantiated >>>>> for the parent model it is also instantiated for the >>>>> incorporated/mounted model. In our case we expect to do this on >>>>> list element creation. Both solutions drafts cover the path >>>>> implications, so these are not repeated here. >>>>> >>>>> 2. that this mechanism allow identification of specific modules to >>>>> be incorporated/mounted at time of module definition, i.e. that >>>>> no additional module is needed to support 1. This doesn't >>>>> preclude definition of such a module. >>>>> >>>>> 3. that this mechanism allow for a server to control (and >>>>> identify) which modules are incorporated/mounted. (see Section >>>>> 3 LNE in our draft for an envisioned usage.) >>>>> >>>>> 4. that all capabilities that exist with the mounted module are >>>>> available e.g. RPC operations and notifications. >>>>> >>>>> 5. while our primary requirement is for 'mounting' of top level >>>>> modules, mounting of submodules may also be useful. (DT not draft >>>>> driven.) >>>>> >>>>> We make use of the above in sections 3 and 4 of rtgwg-device-model. >>>>>We >>>>> see having a solution as critical for the simplifications/flexibility >>>>> represented in the -02 version of our draft vs the -03 rev. We don't >>>>> see wither solution draft as significantly different and just hope >>>>>for >>>>>a >>>>> standard solution as soon as possible. (a draft-ietf-netmod >>>>>solutions >>>>> draft on the topic by BA would be fantastic given the impact on >>>>>routing >>>>> area -- even if it had to document two variations / alternative >>>>>solutions.) >>>>> >>>>> Again, this is just my opinion and my coauthors or others on the rtg >>>>> area yang DT may choose to chime in. >>>>> >>>>> Lou >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> netmod mailing list >>>>> netmod@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >>>-- >>>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs >>>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
