[netmod] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05

[Joel Jaeggli]

Joel Jaeggli has requested publication of 
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05 as Best Current Practice on behalf of 
the NETMOD working group.

Please verify the document's state at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell]

> On Jan 23, 2018, at 9:21 PM, Acee Lindem (acee)  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> On 1/23/18, 9:56 PM, "Ben Campbell"  wrote:
> 

[…]

> 
> 
>--
>COMMENT:
>--
> 
>There are a few instances of 2119 keywords in lower case. Please consider 
> using
>the boilerplate from RFC 8174.
> 
> This sounds familiar ;^).

Yep. I’m a broken record this week :-)

> I'll update the section and add RFC 8174 as a normative reference.

Thanks!

Ben.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Ben, 

On 1/23/18, 9:56 PM, "Ben Campbell"  wrote:

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis/



--
COMMENT:
--

There are a few instances of 2119 keywords in lower case. Please consider 
using
the boilerplate from RFC 8174.

This sounds familiar ;^). I'll update the section and add RFC 8174 as a 
normative reference. 

Thanks,
Acee 





___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis/



--
COMMENT:
--

There are a few instances of 2119 keywords in lower case. Please consider using
the boilerplate from RFC 8174.


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Thanks Francis!
Acee

On 1/23/18, 5:55 PM, "Francis Dupont"  wrote:

Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-??
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2018-01-23
IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: I'll send another message tomorrow with a few 
comments.




___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-06

[Francis Dupont]

Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-??
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2018-01-23
IETF LC End Date: 2018-01-15
IESG Telechat date: 2018-01-25

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: I'll send another message tomorrow with a few comments.


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:52:50PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> Not currently, as there are two vocal groups with opposing 
> viewpoints.  However, there was strong for advancing it 
> before.  The chairs had to make a decision and, as you can
> imagine, it wasn't easy.  Ultimately, to use a colloquialism,
> a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
>

I am not convinced that publishing two competing schema mount
solutions at more or less the same time makes the Internet work
better.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
g there...)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Kent Watsen]

> So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus
> in the WG?

Not currently, as there are two vocal groups with opposing 
viewpoints.  However, there was strong for advancing it 
before.  The chairs had to make a decision and, as you can
imagine, it wasn't easy.  Ultimately, to use a colloquialism,
a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.


> I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is
> divided on this issue.

It will and, undoubtedly, the IETF Last Call will be an 
interesting one.


> This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
> right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.

A WG decision, but seems reasonable.  Are there any small things
that can be done to the current model to facilitate this?


> Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document
> to the IESG at the same time ;-)

This would be fabulous.


Kent



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[joel jaeggli]

On 1/23/18 3:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the
> WG?
>
> I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on
> this issue.
>
> For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets
> delayed, I strongly object to this decision.
I don't think it does. assuming we had a draft that addresses that
problem. we could poll for working group adoption now.  and proceed with
that one accordingly. what happens there is orthogonal to sending this
one on it's way.
> Assuming this document now moves forward as-is, can we assume that we
> can start to work on the bis document immediately?  What is needed?
>
>   1.  a new individual draft
>   2.  some time until this becomes WG draft
call for adoption can occur once we have a draft.
>   3.  some time before WGLC
>
> Do we have to go through all these steps?
there's roughly three weeks of more or less required process time 
between submission to a working group and the close of WGLC, everything
else is compressible to various degrees if we can satisfy our standards
for consensus, and we don't spend to much time orbiting the same point.
> This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
> right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.
>
> Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document to
> the IESG at the same time ;-)
If you hurry. the first one has taken a bit over 2 years to this point,
I certainly think we can reel that in.
>
> /martin
>
>
> Kent Watsen  wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> 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], 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

Re: [netmod] Closure - : WGLC - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

I just posted draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-05.txt.  It
addressed the issue below, and the other WGLC issues:

  o  the main tree now uses 2 spaces for indentation instead of 4

  o  added example for expanded/unexpanded grouping

  o  fixed errors in the row syntax

  o  aligned all examples to use proper amount of whitespace
 indentation

This document should now be ready to progress.



/martin


joel jaeggli  wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> This WGLC is concluded.
> 
> We have consensus to advance the document.
> 
> The authors should submit an update reflecting the result of the
> dicussion on the text representation of tree diagrams not being usable
> by machine parsers.
> 
> The exchange between Robert Wilton and Martin Bjorkland I think sums
> this up succinctly.
> 
> (Robert)
> 
> OK, so the "Providing some guidance for how to represent the tree is
> good" is along the lines of what I was thinking for the "algorithm"
> would be for 2.
> 
> E.g. something along the lines of:
> "Arbitrary whitespace is allowed between any of the whitespace
> separated fields (e.g.  and ).  Additional whitespace may
> be used to column align fields (e.g. within a list or container) to
> improve readability".
> 
> (Martin)
> This is fine with me.  It is something in between (1) and (2) which
> people preferred.  I will add this text.
> 
> Thanks all, looking forward to IETF last call.
> 
> joel
>  
> 
> 
> On 1/16/18 9:24 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> > The current dicussion on the draft is not yet concluded. The WGLC will
> > conclude when discussion of the editorial changes is complete.
> >
> > Thanks
> > joel
> >
> > On 1/10/18 8:16 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> >> Just a reminder given the date that this was posted. This last call is
> >> expected to complete Monday 1/15/18.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> joel
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/1/18 2:01 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> >>> Greetings,
> >>>
> >>> We hope  the new year is a time to make great progess on outstanding
> >>> documents before preparation for the  London IETF begins in earnest.
> >>>
> >>> This starts a two-week working group last call on:
> >>>
> >>>  YANG Tree Diagrams
> >>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/
> >>>
> >>> Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns.
> >>>
> >>> We are particularly interested in statements of the form:
> >>>
> >>>   * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues.
> >>>   * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>> NETMOD WG Chairs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> 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

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the
WG?

I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on
this issue.

For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets
delayed, I strongly object to this decision.

Assuming this document now moves forward as-is, can we assume that we
can start to work on the bis document immediately?  What is needed?

  1.  a new individual draft
  2.  some time until this becomes WG draft
  3.  some time before WGLC

Do we have to go through all these steps?

This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.

Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document to
the IESG at the same time ;-)


/martin


Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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], 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