Hi Lou, > The charters from the last couple of years don't have the intended status -- at least the ones we checked. > I actually feel pretty strongly about this (which of course can be easily overruled by our AD). It's my experience that premature discussions on intended status, i.e., > before a document is sufficiently mature, leads to process-focused arguments that detracts from making technical progress. While once a document is mature and > core direction/content is fixed, it is generally obvious what status is appropriate.
The charters from the last couple of years have a short WG item definition, which would be IMO sufficient. You are right the intended status is not available since a few years, but IMO it is part of the target definition and would be very useful for the draft authors and WG members to regard. > > It would be good to bring the high-level topics in relation to the WG items. > I'm sorry, I don't understand this last sentence can you rephrase it? What I meant is that the high-level topics a)-f) might be good as WG focus description but are not sufficient as draft target definition. If you think the high-level topic description is more or less the WG item definition, then we could simply write "this is achieved with WG item XY". If not, we could keep the high-level focus text but set additionally the borders of the WG item with some concrete words. > > BTW: We agreed in diverse discussions that the DS concept is Informational in nature. > > I think this should be corrected in the draft. > > So this sounds like an objection to a specific document. This is a fair point to > raise, but in our opinion it is not a charter impacting point or discussion. If this > is in fact the issue you'd like to raise and discuss, lets do so under a document > specific thread, e.g., "Subject: intended status of revised-datastore". I am actually raising this point since November meeting. There are different threads where I explained why it is appropriate as Informational. The last thread I remember is at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1ju_CamUPnzCCeqmlFR5JH11xcY The recent position of NETCONF co-chairs is in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oMBYwr5GMsmBfotKJ_2_cd8qr5k Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net] > Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 11:28 PM > To: Mehmet Ersue <mer...@gmail.com>; 'Kent Watsen' > <kwat...@juniper.net>; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal > > Hi Mehmet, > > On 3/8/2017 4:47 PM, Mehmet Ersue wrote: > > Kent, > > > >> we understand that this is how NETCONF charters are structured, but > >> it is not our practice, > > AFAIK it was the NETMOD practice for the charters until today. > > The charters from the last couple of years don't have the intended status -- > at least the ones we checked. > > I actually feel pretty strongly about this (which of course can be easily > overruled by our AD). It's my experience that premature discussions on > intended status, i.e., before a document is sufficiently mature, leads to > process-focused arguments that detracts from making technical progress. > While once a document is mature and core direction/content is fixed, it is > generally obvious what status is appropriate. > > > > I did not ask > > more than written in the current charter. > > It would be good to bring the high-level topics in relation to the WG items. > I'm sorry, I don't understand this last sentence can you rephrase it? > > >> as the information is available at the top of each draft, and also because > this information need not be fixed when the milestone is added. > > > I believe a WG charter should be self-sufficient covering the target > > definition and intended status of the WG items. > > Otherwise one can change the target for a WG item by simply editing > > the draft abstract anytime. > > Per IETF process, all it ever takes to make a change in document status is WG > consensus, and then IESG and IETF buy-in as part of the publication process. > > > BTW: We agreed in diverse discussions that the DS concept is > > Informational in nature. > > I think this should be corrected in the draft. > > So this sounds like an objection to a specific document. This is a fair point to > raise, but in our opinion it is not a charter impacting point or discussion. If this > is in fact the issue you'd like to raise and discuss, lets do so under a document > specific thread, e.g., "Subject: > intended status of revised-datastore". > > Thanks, > Lou > > > > > Mehmet > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent > >> Watsen > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 7:45 PM > >> To: netmod@ietf.org > >> Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi NETMOD WG, > >> > >> Please find below draft-4 having the following change: > >> > >> - added "(e.g., I2RS, RTGWG)" to a sentence. > >> > >> Hi Sue, Lou and I looked at the proposed charter and found a sentence > >> that nicely describes our WG's intent to work with and support other > >> WGs (beyond NETCONF), but we felt that the text could be made more > >> clear by adding in the above-mentioned change. Beyond this, and the > >> existing a), > > b), > >> and c), we believe that the charter proposal covers our support for > >> I2RS, > > do > >> you agree? > >> > >> Hi Mehmet, regarding putting a short description and the intended > >> status > > for > >> each draft into the charter, we understand that this is how NETCONF > > charters > >> are structured, but it is not our practice, as the information is > > available at the > >> top of each draft, and also because this information need not be > >> fixed > > when > >> the milestone is added. > >> > >> All, Any other comments? > >> > >> Kent > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Network Modeling (NETMOD) > >> ------------------------- > >> > >> Charter > >> > >> Current Status: Active > >> > >> Chairs: > >> Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> > >> Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> > >> > >> Operations and Management Area Directors: > >> Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> > >> Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > >> > >> Operations and Management Area Advisor: > >> Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> > >> > >> Secretary: > >> Zitao (Michael) Wang <wangzi...@huawei.com> > >> > >> Mailing Lists: > >> General Discussion: netmod@ietf.org > >> To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >> Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/ > >> > >> Description of Working Group: > >> > >> The Network Modeling (NETMOD) working group is responsible for the > >> YANG > >> data modeling language, and guidelines for developing YANG models. > The > >> NETMOD working group addresses general topics related to the use of > the > >> YANG language and YANG models, for example, the mapping of YANG > >> modeled > >> data into various encodings. Finally, the NETMOD working group > >> also defines core YANG models used as basic YANG building blocks, and > >> YANG models that do not otherwise fall under the charter of any other > >> IETF working group. > >> > >> The NETMOD WG is responsible for: > >> > >> a) Maintaining the data modeling language YANG. This effort entails > >> periodically updating the specification to address new requirements > >> as they arise. > >> > >> b) Maintaining the guidelines for developing YANG models. This effort > >> is primarily driven by updates made to the YANG specification. > >> > >> c) Maintaining a conceptual framework in which YANG models are used. > >> This effort entails describing the generic context that in YANG > >> exists and how certain YANG statements interact in that context. > >> An example of this is YANG's relationship with datastores. > >> > >> d) Maintaining encodings for YANG modeled data. This effort entails > >> updating encodings already defined by the NETMOD working (XML and > >> JSON) to accommodate changes to the YANG specification, and > defining > >> new encodings that are needed, and yet do not fall under the charter > >> of any other active IETF working group. > >> > >> e) Maintaining YANG models used as basic YANG building blocks. This > >> effort entails updating existing YANG models (ietf-yang-types and > >> ietf-inet-types) as needed, as well as defining additional core YANG > >> data models when necessary. > >> > >> f) Defining and maintaining YANG models that do not fall under the > >> charter of any other active IETF working group. > >> > >> The NETMOD working group consults with the NETCONF working group > to > >> ensure that new requirements are understood and can be met by the > >> protocols (e.g., NETCONF and RESTCONF) developed within that working > >> group. The NETMOD working group coordinates with other working > groups > >> (e.g., I2RS, RTGWG) on possible extensions to YANG to address new > >> modeling requirements and, when needed, which group will run the > >> process on a specific model. > >> > >> The NETMOD working group does not serve as a review team for YANG > >> modules developed by other working groups. Instead, the YANG > doctors, > >> as organized by the OPS area director responsible for network > >> management, will act as advisors for other working groups and provide > >> YANG reviews for the OPS area directors. > >> > >> Milestones: > >> > >> Done - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis to IESG for publication > >> Mar 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification to IESG > >> for publication > >> Mar 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model to IESG for publication > >> Apr 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-entity to IESG for publication > >> Apr 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model to IESG for > > publication > >> Oct 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount to IESG for > > publication > >> Oct 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores to IESG for > >> publication > >> Dec 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang to IESG for > >> publication > >> Dec 2017 - Submit draft-ietf-netmod-sub-intf-vlan-yang to IESG for > >> publication > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> netmod mailing list > >> netmod@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
