I support the adoption of this draft as WG document I think the scope of the draft/model can also be extended to be applicable to any service-type module and not being limited to only L2VPN and L3VPN. For example we can call it svc-common rather than vpn-common.
Regarding the approach, my preference is to include in the common module all the types/groupings which are common. In order not to delay the progress of L3NM, it is possible to follow the same approach that has been followed in CCAMP WG with layer0-types: once L3NM is ready for WG LC, it is possible to move forward for WG LC only the common types/groupings which are needed by L3NM (as first revision of the common YANG module) and to move the types/groupings needed by other on-going work (e.g., L2NM) into a new draft which is intended to become a second revision of the common YANG module. My 2 cents Italo > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:jcla...@cisco.com] > Sent: giovedì 13 agosto 2020 14:49 > To: opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org> > Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common > > Hello, WG members. On the IETF 108 virtual meeting, Oscar presented the > status of the L3NM, L2NM, and the VPN common work. While this VPN > common YANG module started as an individual document (per the chairs’ > request), the L2NM and L3NM modules need to choose a direction for how to > handle common typedefs and groupings between them. > > On the virtual meeting we did a hum which indicated “Pianissimo” support. > Again, the hum system had some interesting rules, so this is not conclusive, > but seems to favor that this common module work should exist as its own, > standalone document that both L2NM and L3NM will consume. In this > manner, one would not need to import either L2NM or L3NM to make use > of/extend these common attributes. > > To that end, the chairs would like a call for adoption of draft-bgbw-opsawg- > vpn-common. Additionally, comments on the approach and the choice of > common attributes are welcome, especially from those that were unable to > attend the IETF 108 virtual meeting. > > This serves as a two week call for adoption ending on August 27, 2020. > > Thanks. > > Joe _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
