Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

2020-03-03 Thread Benoit Claise 

Hi,

No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

Regards, B.



Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please 
feel free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft 
and would like your name removed from the contribution section (and 
moved to acknowledgments after WG adoption).


If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.



.


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

Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module is needed as import-only or as implemented

2020-03-03 Thread Andy Bierman 
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:45 AM Benoit Claise  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Ladislav Lhotka  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 09:52 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Benoit Claise  wrote:
>> > > Sorry to resurrect this old email thread.
>> > > To me, it's an important piece of information to know that
>> ietf-netconf-acm
>> > > is optional to implement.
>> > >
>> > > It seems that we have 3 potential places where to insert this
>> information
>> > > 1. The associated document. We could and should insert it into the
>> RFC text.
>> > > Drawback: Somehow the YANG module is looked at independently of
>> the
>> > > associated document
>> > > 2. import-stmt: people on the list apparently don't like this
>> > > 3. module description? What harm would it do if the description could
>> > > contain this info?
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > IMO it makes more sense to summarize the imported modules that need to
>> be
>> > implemented
>> > and not mention the ones that are not required.  The module
>> description-stmt
>> > is better
>> > than each import. (YANG 1.1 allows the same module to be imported
>> multiple
>> > times).
>>
>> Modules that have to be implemented can be imported only once. Adding this
>> information to the import statement for such modules is IMO more
>> effective than
>> having it in the module description. I don't get how it could become a
>> problem.
>>
>>
> I do not think this info helps very much. It is duplicate info.
> It should be in the description-stmts for the objects defined in the
> module.
>
> Well, I had in mind the module description
> The "description-stmts for the objects defined in the module" is yet
> another place.
>


The object descriptions are the correct level of granularity to be useful.
A boolean statement wrt/ module implementation is required vs not required
is not very useful.
Rarely is the entire module either fully required or nothing to implement
at all.

IMO it is wrong to conflate the import-stmt with conformance requirements.
It is merely a mechanism to bind local prefix usage to an external module.
Text like "revision X or derived from X is required" is appropriate for the
import-stmt because
it refers to the binding between prefix and imported module revision used.

Consider how this extra documentation work scales to a big module like
ietf-bgp.
There are multiple submodules, each with overlapping imports and each with
their own module header.


Andy

It is also self-evident (and defined in YANG) that if you augment some
> external node
> you have to implement the augmented module.
>
>  This is the classic definition of a CLR.
>
> Lada
>>
>
>
> Trying to decompose the problem space 
> I believe it's common sense to include in the RFC text that
> ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement (to take the example in question
> in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11
> )
> Do we agree that this information should also be contained somewhere,
> somehow in the YANG module? I would say: yes
>
> If yes, what are the options?
> I agree with Juergen (in a reply in this email thread): ideally a tooling
> answer would be better. This will take some time. So what do we do now?
> 3 options:
> a. import description (description-stmt in import-stmt)
>
> module ietf-system-capabilities {
>   yang-version 1.1;
>   namespace
> "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-capabilities";
>   prefix sysc;
>
>   import ietf-netconf-acm
> { prefix nacm; }
> description "*ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement*.";
> }
>
>
> b. module description (description-stmt in  meta-stmts in
> module-stmt/submodule-stmt)
>
> module ietf-system-capabilities {
>   yang-version 1.1;
>   namespace
> "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-capabilities";
>   prefix sysc;
>
>   import ietf-netconf-acm { prefix nacm; }
>
>   import ietf-yang-library {
> prefix yanglib;
> description "Revision 2019-01-04 or a
>   revision derived from it is REQUIRED.";
>   }
>
>   organization
> "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
>   contact
> "WG Web:   
>  WG List:   
>
>  Editor:   Balazs Lengyel
> 
> ";
>   description
> "This module specifies a module intended to contain system
>   capabilities. System capabilities may include capabilities of a
>   NETCONF or RESTCONF server or a notification publisher.
>
>   ...
>
>
>   *ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement."*
>
> c. description-stmts for the objects defined in the module
>
>   leaf node-selector {
> type nacm:node-instance-identifier;
> description
>   "Selects the data nodes for which capabilities are
>specified. The special value '/' denotes all data nodes
>in the datastore.

Re: [netmod] Adoption of versioning design team docs

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
As author/DT member, I support adoption.

From: netmod  on behalf of Lou Berger 

Date: Monday, March 2, 2020 at 5:30 PM
To: NETMOD Group 
Cc: "netmod-cha...@ietf.org" 
Subject: [netmod] Adoption of versioning design team docs


Hi,

We'd like to start a two week adoption call for the set of documents described 
below by Rob.  To be specific, this includes

1) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-solutions-03

2) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

3) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01

4) draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-03

5) draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-02

6) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-schema-comparison-00



The adoption call ends in two weeks, on March 16.



Please voice your support or objections on list.  While we prefer to adopt as a 
set, objections on specific documents are acceptable.



Netmod Chairs



On 2/29/2020 2:21 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:

Netmod chairs,



The version selection draft draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-02 is now 
posted.  With that, the YANG versioning design team would like to please 
request you make an WG adoption call for these documents.



The updated full list is:



1) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-solutions-03

  - Solution overview, updated since 106 to cover updates to version selection 
and schema comparison drafts.



2) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

  - Base module versioning solution, unchanged from the version presented at 
106.



3) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01

  - YANG Semantic version numbers, unchanged from the version presented at 106.



4) draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-03

  - YANG packages draft, updated since 106



5) draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-02

  - Version selection, updated since 106, as per notes below



6) draft-verdt-netmod-yang-schema-comparison-00

  - Schema comparison tooling, unchanged from the version presented at 106.



The main changes to the version selection draft are:

  - We have tried to simplify the model, but at the same time give servers more 
flexibility about how they implement version selection and what it can be used 
for.  E.g. if the server wants to allow a client to choose between different 
schema versions, but require that all clients use the same schema version, that 
is now possible

  - The draft explicitly disallows schema-selection happening mid-session

  - The solution allows the server to require clients to configure schema-sets 
before they are used

  - The solution provides more information about which schema-sets are 
compatible with each other



Regards,

Rob




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

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-rwilton-netmod-yang-packages-03

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

On 2020-03-02, 5:14 PM, "Lou Berger"  wrote:


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please feel 
free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft and 
would like your name removed from the contribution section (and moved to 
acknowledgments after WG adoption).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.





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

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-wilton-netmod-yang-ver-selection-02

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger"  wrote:


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please feel 
free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft and 
would like your name removed from the contribution section (and moved to 
acknowledgments after WG adoption).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.





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

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-module-versioning-01

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger"  wrote:


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please feel 
free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft and 
would like your name removed from the contribution section (and moved to 
acknowledgments after WG adoption).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.





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

Re: [netmod] [Netmod-ver-dt] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-schema-comparison-00

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.

On 2020-03-02, 5:14 PM, "Netmod-ver-dt on behalf of Lou Berger" 
 wrote:


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please feel 
free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft and 
would like your name removed from the contribution section (and moved to 
acknowledgments after WG adoption).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.



___
Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
netmod-ver...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt


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

Re: [netmod] Regarding IPR on draft-verdt-netmod-yang-semver-01

2020-03-03 Thread Reshad Rahman (rrahman) 
No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft

On 2020-03-02, 5:13 PM, "Lou Berger"  wrote:


Authors, Contributors, WG,

As part of preparation for WG Adoption:

Are you aware of any IPR that applies to drafts identified above?

Please state either:

"No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft"
or
"Yes, I'm aware of IPR that applies to this draft"

If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules
(see RFCs 3669, 5378 and 8179 for more details)?

If yes to the above, please state either:

"Yes, the IPR has been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules"
or
"No, the IPR has not been disclosed"

If you answer no, please provide any additional details you think
appropriate.

We note that all DT members are listed as contributors.  If you 
contributed to the document please respond.  Alternatively, please feel 
free to state that you didn't materially contribute to the draft and 
would like your name removed from the contribution section (and moved to 
acknowledgments after WG adoption).

If you are listed as a document author or contributor please answer the
above by responding to this email regardless of whether or not you are
aware of any relevant IPR. This document will not advance to the next
stage until a response has been received from each author.

NOTE: THIS APPLIES TO ALL OF YOU LISTED IN THIS MESSAGE'S TO LINES.

If you are on the WG email list or attend WG meetings but are not listed
as an author or contributor, we remind you of your obligations under
the IETF IPR rules which encourages you to notify the IETF if you are
aware of IPR of others on an IETF contribution, or to refrain from
participating in any contribution or discussion related to your
undisclosed IPR. For more information, please see the RFCs listed above
and
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IntellectualProperty.

Thank you,
NetMod WG Chairs

PS Please include all listed in the headers of this message in your
response.





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

Re: [netmod] Text in import to indicate whether a module is needed as import-only or as implemented

2020-03-03 Thread Benoit Claise 

Hi,



On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:23 AM Ladislav Lhotka > wrote:


On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 09:52 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Benoit Claise mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote:
> > Sorry to resurrect this old email thread.
> > To me, it's an important piece of information to know that
ietf-netconf-acm
> > is optional to implement.
> >
> > It seems that we have 3 potential places where to insert this
information
> > 1. The associated document. We could and should insert it into
the RFC text.
> >     Drawback: Somehow the YANG module is looked at
independently of the
> > associated document
> > 2. import-stmt: people on the list apparently don't like this
> > 3. module description? What harm would it do if the
description could
> > contain this info?
> >
> >
>
> IMO it makes more sense to summarize the imported modules that
need to be
> implemented
> and not mention the ones that are not required.  The module
description-stmt
> is better
> than each import. (YANG 1.1 allows the same module to be
imported multiple
> times).

Modules that have to be implemented can be imported only once.
Adding this
information to the import statement for such modules is IMO more
effective than
having it in the module description. I don't get how it could
become a problem.


I do not think this info helps very much. It is duplicate info.
It should be in the description-stmts for the objects defined in the 
module.

Well, I had in mind the module description
The "description-stmts for the objects defined in the module" is yet 
another place.
It is also self-evident (and defined in YANG) that if you augment some 
external node

you have to implement the augmented module.

 This is the classic definition of a CLR.

Lada




Trying to decompose the problem space 
I believe it's common sense to include in the RFC text that 
ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement (to take the example in 
question in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11)
Do we agree that this information should also be contained somewhere, 
somehow in the YANG module? I would say: yes


If yes, what are the options?
I agree with Juergen (in a reply in this email thread): ideally a 
tooling answer would be better. This will take some time. So what do we 
do now?

3 options:
a. import description (description-stmt in import-stmt)

   module ietf-system-capabilities {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-capabilities";
  prefix sysc;

  import ietf-netconf-acm
{ prefix nacm; }
description "_ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement_.";
}


b. module description (description-stmt in  meta-stmts in 
module-stmt/submodule-stmt)


   module ietf-system-capabilities {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-capabilities";
  prefix sysc;

  import ietf-netconf-acm { prefix nacm; }

  import ietf-yang-library {
prefix yanglib;
description "Revision 2019-01-04 or a
  revision derived from it is REQUIRED.";
  }

  organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
  contact
"WG Web:   
 WG List:  

 Editor:   Balazs Lengyel
   ";
  description
"This module specifies a module intended to contain system
  capabilities. System capabilities may include capabilities of a
  NETCONF or RESTCONF server or a notification publisher.

  ...

 
  _ietf-netconf-acm is optional to implement."_


c. description-stmts for the objects defined in the module

  leaf node-selector {
type nacm:node-instance-identifier;
description
  "Selects the data nodes for which capabilities are
   specified. The special value '/' denotes all data nodes
   in the datastore._ietf-netconf-acm is optional to 
implement._";
  }


c. looks weird to me, and might need repetitions in different YANG 
objects. In the end, as an implementer, I only care to understand 
whether I need to implement "ietf-netconf-acm" as a prequesite to 
implement ietf-system-capabilities.


Between a. and b., I have no strong preferences.
However, a. seems to be the logical place to me.

Regards, Benoit



>
> > Regards, Benoit
> >
>
> Andy
>
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:44 AM Ladislav Lhotka
mailto:lho...@nic.cz>> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 04:49 -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:11 AM