Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into a multi-email back and forth justifying point by point. The model is going on 2 years old now, I think it works just fine for what operators need, and see no issue with NMDA -- it should just work that was the point behind the NMDA design.
Thanks, Chris. Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> writes: > Hi, > > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: >> >> Maybe a meeting at this point is useful? It would consolidate things and >> get away from the endless email threads. >> >> If this isn't already known to everyone. There are many people for whom >> the length of time to market from IETF simple doesn't work in particular >> with models. That's one big reason that openconfig exists. Sitting on >> working solutions waiting for them to be perfect is just getting us >> ignored by industry. >> >> In particular when I, Lou, et al. realized we needed a way to "mount >> schema" for a clean VRF and VM solution, we thought this was a simple >> thing and we could do it rather quickly -- the concept is just not that >> complex. The idea was picked up by Martin and Lada who produced drafts, >> and there were in fact some devil in the details and those got worked >> out over longer than anyone wanted, but it is what it is. >> >> Now it seems we are supposed to wait a bunch longer on yet other works >> in progress for as near as I can tell (could be wrong here as I just >> don't have time to read the very long email threads that netmod >> generates) capturing meta-data in a cleaner way than another. > > During the time since we started working on schema mount, we (the WG) > have also defined the NMDA. All we (the SM authors and others) are > asking for is that schema mount is defined to be compatible with the > NMDA. This is something we (the IETF) currently require of all other > drafts. > > The missing piece of this puzzle is the new YANG library. During the > interim in December a solution was picked. This solution is > documented in the latest draft, and a new version of this draft will > be published next week, which we hope can go to WGLC. > > > /martin > > > This does >> *not* seem like a reason to stall this work any further. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> >> Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> writes: >> > >> >> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC >> >> on Nov 6th. >> >> >> >> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are >> >> address unless significant faults are found. Post LC comments have >> >> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with >> >> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema. >> >> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call >> >> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to >> >> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time. >> > >> > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to >> > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of >> > *both* document authors? >> > >> >> >> >> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution >> >> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable >> >> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its >> >> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a >> >> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts >> >> that normatively reference the current draft. >> >> >> >> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], >> > >> > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody >> > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more >> > than hand-waving. >> > >> > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even >> > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something. >> > >> > Lada >> > >> >> we also agree >> >> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should >> >> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state), >> >> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers >> >> supporting rfc7895bis. >> >> >> >> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this >> >> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission >> >> and advancement. >> >> >> >> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kent, Lou, and Joel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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
