Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Zhuangyan (Yan)]

Thank you, Robert. Some additional information for Tom and all.

Yes. We are now working on the PAR, CSD and Objectives of this project. Once 
they are approved, there will be a Task Force to work on the Ethernet models.
You can find relative documents and information at 
http://www.ieee802.org/3/YANG/index.html .

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Yan

-邮件原件-
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Robert Wilton
发送时间: 2016年4月27日 20:54
收件人: t.petch; Kent Watsen; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft

Hi Tom,

Yes, 802.3 passed a CFI (call-for-interest) at the last IEEE plenary and have 
formed a study group to create a PAR (project authorization request).  Once the 
PAR has passed then there will be a formal design team to work on the Ethernet 
models.

Thanks,
Rob


On 27/04/2016 10:06, t.petch wrote:
> Kent
>
> Has there been any progress in the IEEE on their work to produce 
> Ethernet related models, as was mentioned earlier on in this thread?
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kent Watsen" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
>
>
>> [I wanted to formally close this thread, modeled after Lou's recent
> closure of another draft]
>> This poll is complete and the document is adopted,
>>
>> Authors,
>>
>> Please resubmit the draft with the only change being to rename the
> draft to draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00
>> Thank you!
>> Kent (and co-chairs)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: netmod 
>> mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>
> on behalf of Kent Watsen
> mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
>> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 6:07 PM
>> To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
> mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
>>
>> The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread
> never closed properly.
>> Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were
> never addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s 
> concerns now?
>> Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness 
>> to
> review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others 
> that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so?
>> Thanks,
>> Netmod Chairs
>>
>>
>> From: netmod 
>> mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>
> on behalf of Kent Watsen
> mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
>> To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
> mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
>> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
>>
>> The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for
> adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes
> also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, 
> which I am doing now.
>> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG 
>> item
> and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please 
> comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG 
> Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward 
> with the document.
>> Thanks,
>> Kent
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> 
>
>
>> ___
>> 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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Tom,

Yes, 802.3 passed a CFI (call-for-interest) at the last IEEE plenary and 
have formed a study group to create a PAR (project authorization 
request).  Once the PAR has passed then there will be a formal design 
team to work on the Ethernet models.


Thanks,
Rob


On 27/04/2016 10:06, t.petch wrote:

Kent

Has there been any progress in the IEEE on their work to produce
Ethernet related models, as was mentioned earlier on in this thread?

Tom Petch


- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft



[I wanted to formally close this thread, modeled after Lou's recent

closure of another draft]

This poll is complete and the document is adopted,

Authors,

Please resubmit the draft with the only change being to rename the

draft to draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00

Thank you!
Kent (and co-chairs)



From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>

on behalf of Kent Watsen
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>

Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 6:07 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"

mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>

Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt

draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread

never closed properly.

Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were

never addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s
concerns now?

Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to

review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others
that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>

on behalf of Kent Watsen
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>

Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"

mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>

Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt

draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for

adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes
also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list,
which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item

and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please
comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG
Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with
the document.

Thanks,
Kent










___
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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[t . petch]

Kent

Has there been any progress in the IEEE on their work to produce
Ethernet related models, as was mentioned earlier on in this thread?

Tom Petch


- Original Message -
From: "Kent Watsen" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


>
> [I wanted to formally close this thread, modeled after Lou's recent
closure of another draft]
>
> This poll is complete and the document is adopted,
>
> Authors,
>
> Please resubmit the draft with the only change being to rename the
draft to draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00
>
> Thank you!
> Kent (and co-chairs)
>
>
>
> From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>
on behalf of Kent Watsen
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
> Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 6:07 PM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
>
>
> The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread
never closed properly.
>
> Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were
never addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s
concerns now?
>
> Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to
review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others
that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so?
>
> Thanks,
> Netmod Chairs
>
>
> From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>>
on behalf of Kent Watsen
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>"
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
>
>
> The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for
adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes
also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list,
which I am doing now.
>
> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item
and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please
comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG
Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with
the document.
>
> Thanks,
> Kent
>
>
>






> ___
> 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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Kent Watsen]

[I wanted to formally close this thread, modeled after Lou's recent closure of 
another draft]

This poll is complete and the document is adopted,

Authors,

Please resubmit the draft with the only change being to rename the draft to 
draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-00

Thank you!
Kent (and co-chairs)



From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Monday, February 29, 2016 at 6:07 PM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed 
properly.

Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?

Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Eric,

Sorry for the delay, just catching up after some PTO.

In short, this draft is defining extensions to RFC 7223 for common 
interface based features that are mostly applicable to routers/switches.


The idea is that there is a set of fairly common interface level 
features that several (perhaps most?) router vendors implement, and many 
customers make use of for configuring their networks.  Examples include 
MTU configuration, or carrier delay (also sometimes called interface 
hold time).  If you are familiar with the OpenConfig interface models 
(https://github.com/openconfig/public/tree/master/release) then you will 
see that they also define some of the same leaves that are not defined 
in RFC 7223.


Of course, as you say, each vendor could define their own proprietary 
extensions to RFC 7223 to cover the specific features that they 
implement.  Alas, this would then require the operators to use hard 
coded proprietary leaves/paths when trying to configure fairly standard 
network configurations.


As such, I believe that for all the features covered by this draft there 
is no direct equivalent in RFC 7223.


Thanks,
Rob


On 06/04/2016 14:57, Eric Gray wrote:

Apologies for responding so late to this message.

I only recently was apprised of this draft and I wanted to know if the 
authors can explain what the draft offers that is not already easily 
supported using RFC 7223?


If it is possible to support the capabilities explicitly targeted in 
this draft, using the existing model, does it make sense to introduce 
a new set of enhancements that make it possible to represent the same 
concepts in two ways?


--
Eric

-


  Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
  draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Mon, 29 
February 2016 23:07 UTCShow header 
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=netmod&q=Wilton#>


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread 
never closed properly. Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic 
milestones, that were never addressed. Robert, can you please try to 
address Juergen’s concerns now? Also, there were only a two responses 
before indicating willingness to review the draft as it progresses 
(thanks Dan and Martin). Can others that support this draft and 
willing to review this draft say so? Thanks, Netmod Chairs From: 
netmod <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org><mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net><mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Date: 
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM To: "netmod@ietf.org 
<mailto:netmod@ietf.org><mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <mailto:netmod@ietf.org><mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] 
call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as 
NETMOD WG draft The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room 
support for adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. 
The minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the 
mailing list, which I am doing now. Should we move to adopt 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add 
this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please comment by Tuesday, 
December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document. 
Thanks, Kent

Sent from my iPad


___
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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Eric Gray]

Apologies for responding so late to this message.

I only recently was apprised of this draft and I wanted to know if the authors 
can explain what the draft offers that is not already easily supported using 
RFC 7223?

If it is possible to support the capabilities explicitly targeted in this 
draft, using the existing model, does it make sense to introduce a new set of 
enhancements that make it possible to represent the same concepts in two ways?

--
Eric

-
Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as 
NETMOD WG draft
Kent Watsen  Mon, 29 February 2016 23:07 UTCShow header
The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed 
properly. Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were 
never addressed. Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now? 
Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin). Can others that support 
this draft and willing to review this draft say so? Thanks, Netmod Chairs From: 
netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of 
Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Date: Tuesday, 
December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus 
to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft The minutes for 
IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now. 
Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document. Thanks, 
Kent 
Sent from my iPad

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Athanasios Kyparlis]

Sorry for the delayed response. I support adopting this document as a WG item 
and I will participate in further reviews. 

Thanks,
Athanasios Kyparlis

-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 9:45 AM
To: Kent Watsen 
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


> On 01 Mar 2016, at 00:07, Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> 
> The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never 
> closed properly.
> 
> Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
> addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?
> 
> Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
> the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
> this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I support adopting this document as a WG 
item, and I will review it.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Netmod Chairs
> 
> 
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org" 
> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
> 
> 
> The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
> this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.  
> 
> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
> correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
> Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
> whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C




___
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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)]

Hi,

Concerning cooperation with the IEEE, we have in place a mechanism of 
communication between the IETF and IEEE 802. Mahesh Jethanadani and myself are 
involved. The key thing is to send information about important milestones (like 
Last Calls) to the IEEE, it can be done via email, no need for formal liaison 
messages. If we identify tougher issues (like duplication, or inconsistencies) 
we can set small shared teams to work things out.

Regards,

Dan

From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhuangyan (Yan)
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 5:26 AM
To: Kent Watsen; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft


Sorry for the late response. It took some time to review this draft and models. 
 And Yes, I support adopting this document as a WG item.

To me, the common model is something useful. There perhaps some overlaps in 
Ethernet-like model with things in IEEE. If yes, we’ll see how to cooperate.



Best Regards,



Yan

发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen
发送时间: 2016年3月1日 7:07
收件人: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed 
properly.

Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?

Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Zhuangyan (Yan)]

Sorry for the late response. It took some time to review this draft and models. 
 And Yes, I support adopting this document as a WG item.

To me, the common model is something useful. There perhaps some overlaps in 
Ethernet-like model with things in IEEE. If yes, we’ll see how to cooperate.



Best Regards,



Yan

发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen
发送时间: 2016年3月1日 7:07
收件人: netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed 
properly.

Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?

Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Kent,

Re-reading Juergen's email, I think that his main concern was whether 
there would be sufficient reviewers of this draft.  It is slightly 
tricky because this draft is covering configuration that I believe many 
network device vendors require and support to make their devices 
function in a sensible fashion, but are not standardized anywhere 
because until YANG came along there has been little need to do so (since 
the features don't generally need to inter-operate between devices).


In terms of milestones, I agree with Juergen, that it is really the 
cross reviews from other device vendors that is most important. I.e. to 
confirm that these configuration knobs are generally applicable to a 
broad set of devices.  So I would think that the next steps would 
consist of:

 - confirmation that this configuration is generally common across vendors.
 - check whether there is any other common interface level 
configuration that is missing and should also be covered.
 - see if it is possible to agree on some more concrete default values 
for some of the settings.
 - see if there is any additional operational state that should also be 
made available.  I think that it is likely that some needs to be added.
 - see if any further explanation or documentation of the defaults 
described in this draft are required.


However, I don't think that this really should end up being a large YANG 
module, or that it should take a particularly long time to standardize, 
presuming that we can get the reviews and agreement of course.


Does that help clarify your/Juergen's concerns?

Thanks,
Rob


On 29/02/2016 23:07, Kent Watsen wrote:


The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread 
never closed properly.


Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were 
never addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s 
concerns now?


Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to 
review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others 
that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so?


Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod <mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Kent Watsen 
mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>

Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft



The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for 
adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The 
minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing 
list, which I am doing now.


Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item 
and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please 
comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG 
Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward 
with the document.


Thanks,
Kent




___
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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Ladislav Lhotka]

> On 01 Mar 2016, at 00:07, Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> 
> The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never 
> closed properly.
> 
> Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
> addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?
> 
> Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
> the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
> this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Sorry I haven't responded earlier. I support adopting this document as a WG 
item, and I will review it.

Lada

> 
> Thanks,
> Netmod Chairs
> 
> 
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
> To: "netmod@ietf.org" 
> Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
> 
> 
> The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
> this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.  
> 
> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
> correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
> Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
> whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C




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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Kent Watsen]

The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread never closed 
properly.

Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were never 
addressed.  Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s concerns now?

Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to review 
the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin).  Can others that support 
this draft and willing to review this draft say so?

Thanks,
Netmod Chairs


From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Martin Bjorklund]

Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for
> adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.  The minutes
> also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list,
> which I am doing now.
> 
> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item
> and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please
> comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG
> Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward
> with the document.

I support the adoption of this draft and I will review and discuss it.


/martin

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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan)]

"I support this work and I will provide the time necessary to review the drafts 
as they progress through the WG"

Regards,

Dan


> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:22 PM
> To: Robert Wilton
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-
> ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
> 
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 07:12:07PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > Hopefully I can answer your questions inline ...
> >
> > On 15/12/2015 17:08, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > >>The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for
> adopting
> > >>draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also
> show
> > >>that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I
> > >>am doing now.
> > >>
> > >>Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG
> > >>item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?
> > >>Please comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which
> > >>time the WG Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to
> > >>move forward with the document.
> > >>
> > >This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
> > >define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
> > >over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
> > >is the scope of this work?
> > There is an informal IEEE 802.3 Ethernet design team (that has the
> > backing of the 802.3 WG chair, and that I'm part of) that is working
> > on YANG models for Ethernet interfaces.  The intention is that this
> > informal design team will become a formal IEEE 802.3 WG design team
> > once it traverses the necessary IEEE 802.3 WG processes (i.e. likely
> > to be sometime later on next year).  The exact scope of this project
> > hasn't been defined yet, and can't formally be defined until the IEEE
> > 802.3 WG agrees that we can do it, but my expectation is that the long
> > term goal will surely be to define YANG models to cover all of the
> > 802.3 work, although there may be various interim goals along the way.
> >
> > In the interim, whilst we wait for the formal WG to be started, the
> > Ethernet design team are working on Ethernet models in Github
> > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__github.com_8023YangDesignTeam_EthernetYang&d=BQICAg&c=BFpW
> Qw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA
> &m=3tQyUrqfsDAP33LXzgkILy2EMU_0VWz161hD3GFUwRI&s=TrgAGrPT06kL
> wOQzvXNfrBVOFWyoF77-gC0jg_K8EZI&e= ).
> >
> > How does that overlap with draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang?  The
> > basic answer is that it shouldn't and arguably doesn't.  The only
> > thing that it defines related to Ethernet is three leaves related to
> > MAC address (configured value, operational value, and burnt-in value)
> > that are applicable to all interfaces that use Ethernet framing.
> > There are various types of interface that use Ethernet framing but are
> > not Ethernet interfaces, nor necessarily defined in IEEE.  I.e. I'm
> > thinking of interfaces where a VPLS instances terminates to a layer 3
> > forwarding instances, or where a pseudo-wire is terminated directly to
> > a layer 3 forwarding instance.  But at the end of the day, if this
> > part of the draft needs to be defined as part of the IEEE 802.3 space
> > then I think that would be fine too - I don't think that it should
> > really be an issue, and I think that we can involve the necessary
> > folks to ensure that this bit gets to the right home.
> 
> Thanks for the background and explanation.
> 
> > >If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
> > >milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
> > >for some prioritization?
> > I believe that at least some of this configuration is required to
> > configure networks in a reliable way, so I would have thought that we
> > need to progress these models at the same time as the routing protocol
> > models.
> >
> > On a related note, any VPLS or Pseudowire models defined by IETF are
> > basically going to be undeployable without
> > draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-01 (or an equivalent) being defined
> > because there wi

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 07:12:07PM +, Robert Wilton wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> Hopefully I can answer your questions inline ...
> 
> On 15/12/2015 17:08, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >>The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
> >>draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show 
> >>that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am 
> >>doing now.
> >>
> >>Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item 
> >>and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please 
> >>comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG 
> >>Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with 
> >>the document.
> >>
> >This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
> >define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
> >over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
> >is the scope of this work?
> There is an informal IEEE 802.3 Ethernet design team (that has the 
> backing of the 802.3 WG chair, and that I'm part of) that is working on 
> YANG models for Ethernet interfaces.  The intention is that this 
> informal design team will become a formal IEEE 802.3 WG design team once 
> it traverses the necessary IEEE 802.3 WG processes (i.e. likely to be 
> sometime later on next year).  The exact scope of this project hasn't 
> been defined yet, and can't formally be defined until the IEEE 802.3 WG 
> agrees that we can do it, but my expectation is that the long term goal 
> will surely be to define YANG models to cover all of the 802.3 work, 
> although there may be various interim goals along the way.
> 
> In the interim, whilst we wait for the formal WG to be started, the 
> Ethernet design team are working on Ethernet models in Github 
> (https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang).
> 
> How does that overlap with draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang?  The basic 
> answer is that it shouldn't and arguably doesn't.  The only thing that 
> it defines related to Ethernet is three leaves related to MAC address 
> (configured value, operational value, and burnt-in value) that are 
> applicable to all interfaces that use Ethernet framing.  There are 
> various types of interface that use Ethernet framing but are not 
> Ethernet interfaces, nor necessarily defined in IEEE.  I.e. I'm thinking 
> of interfaces where a VPLS instances terminates to a layer 3 forwarding 
> instances, or where a pseudo-wire is terminated directly to a layer 3 
> forwarding instance.  But at the end of the day, if this part of the 
> draft needs to be defined as part of the IEEE 802.3 space then I think 
> that would be fine too - I don't think that it should really be an 
> issue, and I think that we can involve the necessary folks to ensure 
> that this bit gets to the right home.

Thanks for the background and explanation.

> >If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
> >milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
> >for some prioritization?
> I believe that at least some of this configuration is required to 
> configure networks in a reliable way, so I would have thought that we 
> need to progress these models at the same time as the routing protocol 
> models.
> 
> On a related note, any VPLS or Pseudowire models defined by IETF are 
> basically going to be undeployable without 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-01 (or an equivalent) being defined 
> because there will be no configuration mechanism to bind the 
> classification of traffic from a particular VLAN to a VPLS instance.  
> Note that I don't see that any models coming out of IEEE 802.1Q are 
> likely to help here.  This point was also raised in PALS at IETF 94 by 
> some of the folks working on, or reviewing, those models.

So what will be realistic milestones? There are many things needed to
configure a complete network using YANG models and we need to make
sure we are able to finish what we start with realistic milestones
(and realistic really boils down to have a sufficient number of
dedicated reviewers lined up with the necessary cycles available to
make the milestones happen).

It might help the WG chairs to not only see "I support this work"
statements but also explicit "I support this work and I will provide
the time necessary to review the drafts as they progress through the
WG" statements.

/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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Gert Grammel]

+1

From: netmod mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on 
behalf of Kent Watsen mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>
Date: Tuesday 15 December 2015 17:48
To: "netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" 
mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang 
as NETMOD WG draft


The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Nadeau Thomas]

Cool. Thanks for the update!

> On Dec 15, 2015:2:19 PM, at 2:19 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 15/12/2015 17:10, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
 The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
 draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show 
 that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am 
 doing now.
 
 Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
 correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment 
 by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will 
 gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
 
>>> This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
>>> define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
>>> over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
>>> is the scope of this work?
>>  The IEEE has officially started working on Ethernet models on
>> the public github repo here, so I suggest taking a look at that for any
>> overlaps.
>> 
>>  https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee
> The latest (work in progress) models are actually at:
> https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang/tree/master/experimental/ieee/802.3
> 
> This repo is a direct fork of YangModels so that we can iterate the IEEE 
> 802.3 models at a faster pace, with an intention that we periodically fold 
> the IEEE model updates back into YangModels when they have been reviewed and 
> reached some level of stability and consensus in the design team.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
>> 
>>  —Tom
>> 
>>> And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
>>> meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
>>> simply carefully revise the model we already have?
>>> 
>>> If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
>>> milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
>>> for some prioritization?
>>> 
>>> /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
>> ___
>> 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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Tom,

On 15/12/2015 17:10, Nadeau Thomas wrote:

On Dec 15, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
 wrote:

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:

The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.


This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
is the scope of this work?

The IEEE has officially started working on Ethernet models on
the public github repo here, so I suggest taking a look at that for any
overlaps.

https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee

The latest (work in progress) models are actually at:
https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang/tree/master/experimental/ieee/802.3

This repo is a direct fork of YangModels so that we can iterate the IEEE 
802.3 models at a faster pace, with an intention that we periodically 
fold the IEEE model updates back into YangModels when they have been 
reviewed and reached some level of stability and consensus in the design 
team.


Thanks,
Rob




—Tom


And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
simply carefully revise the model we already have?

If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
for some prioritization?

/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

___
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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Robert Wilton]

Hi Juergen,

Hopefully I can answer your questions inline ...

On 15/12/2015 17:08, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:

The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.


This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
is the scope of this work?
There is an informal IEEE 802.3 Ethernet design team (that has the 
backing of the 802.3 WG chair, and that I'm part of) that is working on 
YANG models for Ethernet interfaces.  The intention is that this 
informal design team will become a formal IEEE 802.3 WG design team once 
it traverses the necessary IEEE 802.3 WG processes (i.e. likely to be 
sometime later on next year).  The exact scope of this project hasn't 
been defined yet, and can't formally be defined until the IEEE 802.3 WG 
agrees that we can do it, but my expectation is that the long term goal 
will surely be to define YANG models to cover all of the 802.3 work, 
although there may be various interim goals along the way.


In the interim, whilst we wait for the formal WG to be started, the 
Ethernet design team are working on Ethernet models in Github 
(https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang).


How does that overlap with draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang?  The basic 
answer is that it shouldn't and arguably doesn't.  The only thing that 
it defines related to Ethernet is three leaves related to MAC address 
(configured value, operational value, and burnt-in value) that are 
applicable to all interfaces that use Ethernet framing.  There are 
various types of interface that use Ethernet framing but are not 
Ethernet interfaces, nor necessarily defined in IEEE.  I.e. I'm thinking 
of interfaces where a VPLS instances terminates to a layer 3 forwarding 
instances, or where a pseudo-wire is terminated directly to a layer 3 
forwarding instance.  But at the end of the day, if this part of the 
draft needs to be defined as part of the IEEE 802.3 space then I think 
that would be fine too - I don't think that it should really be an 
issue, and I think that we can involve the necessary folks to ensure 
that this bit gets to the right home.




And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
simply carefully revise the model we already have?

I'm not sure that I know the answer to this one.

Some of the extra configuration that is being defined by this module is 
more router specific, whereas I see the base interfaces model as 
potentially having a wider applicability across devices.




If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
for some prioritization?
I believe that at least some of this configuration is required to 
configure networks in a reliable way, so I would have thought that we 
need to progress these models at the same time as the routing protocol 
models.


On a related note, any VPLS or Pseudowire models defined by IETF are 
basically going to be undeployable without 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-01 (or an equivalent) being defined 
because there will be no configuration mechanism to bind the 
classification of traffic from a particular VLAN to a VPLS instance.  
Note that I don't see that any models coming out of IEEE 802.1Q are 
likely to help here.  This point was also raised in PALS at IETF 94 by 
some of the folks working on, or reviewing, those models.


Thanks,
Rob




/js



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

Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
> this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.
> 
> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
> correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
> Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
> whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
> 

This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
is the scope of this work?

And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
simply carefully revise the model we already have?

If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
for some prioritization?

/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] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Nadeau Thomas]

> On Dec 15, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:48:21PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 
>> The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
>> draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show 
>> that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing 
>> now.
>> 
>> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
>> correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment 
>> by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will 
>> gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
>> 
> 
> This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
> define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
> over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
> is the scope of this work?

The IEEE has officially started working on Ethernet models on
the public github repo here, so I suggest taking a look at that for any
overlaps.

https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee

—Tom

> 
> And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
> meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
> simply carefully revise the model we already have?
> 
> If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
> milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
> for some prioritization?
> 
> /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

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

[netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

[Kent Watsen]

The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that 
this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and 
correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by 
Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge 
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent


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