Re: [netmod] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Tina TSOU]

Dear all,

Agree with Lada and Juergen, regarding quantifying the changes and the time 
frame.


Thank you,
Tina

On Jul 29, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>
 wrote:

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder 
mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>>
 writes:

Lada,

there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete
actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to
be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would
have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal.

This is still quite some work, so I'd first like to see an elementary
consensus that it is a good thing to do now.

I think the WG needs to see a half way complete list of changes that
this implies in order to form an opinion, something like 'section X
needs to be rewritten', 'section X needs to be split into A and B',
'section X does not require any changes' etc. Unless we have an
outline of how much work this is, we simply do not know what we are
talking about.

Clearly it would mean further delay for 6020bis and all other documents
that depend on it. And frankly - I need to show my employer that at
least some of my IETF work ever gets finished.

I agree. If such a reorganization costs say more of four additional
weeks, I have a hard time to like it.

/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

Re: [netmod] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:49:01AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:
> 
> > Lada,
> >
> > there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete
> > actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to
> > be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would
> > have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal.
> 
> This is still quite some work, so I'd first like to see an elementary
> consensus that it is a good thing to do now.

I think the WG needs to see a half way complete list of changes that
this implies in order to form an opinion, something like 'section X
needs to be rewritten', 'section X needs to be split into A and B',
'section X does not require any changes' etc. Unless we have an
outline of how much work this is, we simply do not know what we are
talking about.

> Clearly it would mean further delay for 6020bis and all other documents
> that depend on it. And frankly - I need to show my employer that at
> least some of my IETF work ever gets finished.

I agree. If such a reorganization costs say more of four additional
weeks, I have a hard time to like it.

/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] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:

> Lada,
>
> there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete
> actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to
> be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would
> have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal.

This is still quite some work, so I'd first like to see an elementary
consensus that it is a good thing to do now.

Clearly it would mean further delay for 6020bis and all other documents
that depend on it. And frankly - I need to show my employer that at
least some of my IETF work ever gets finished.

Lada

>
> /js
>
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:06:54PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>> > On 26 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>> >  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Any are concrete actionable proposals?
>> 
>> Start rewriting 6020bis, but only if we decide to go that way - it is a 
>> difficult decision. I will be slightly in favor of doing so.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>> > 
>> > /js
>> > 
>> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman  wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>> 
>> >>> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
>> >>> be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
>> >>> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
>> >>> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87):
>> >> 
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod
>> >> 
>> >> (first item in Open mike section).
>> >> 
>> >> Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that 
>> >> are inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” 
>> >> sections.
>> >> 
>> >> I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data 
>> >> tree properties. Separate documents would then define different 
>> >> encodings, and “profiles” for management protocols.
>> >> 
>> >> It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though.
>> >> 
>> >> Lada
>> >> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Andy
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> ___
>> >>> 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
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>> 
>> --
>> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

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

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

Re: [netmod] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

Lada,

there won't be any decision as long as there is not a concrete
actionable proposal to be discussed. Such a proposal does not have to
be 'complete rewrite' but it needs to be a detailed list of what would
have to change so that it is possible to assess such a proposal.

/js

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:06:54PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Any are concrete actionable proposals?
> 
> Start rewriting 6020bis, but only if we decide to go that way - it is a 
> difficult decision. I will be slightly in favor of doing so.
> 
> Lada
> 
> > 
> > /js
> > 
> > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> >>> be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
> >>> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> >>> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87):
> >> 
> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod
> >> 
> >> (first item in Open mike section).
> >> 
> >> Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that 
> >> are inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” 
> >> sections.
> >> 
> >> I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data 
> >> tree properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, 
> >> and “profiles” for management protocols.
> >> 
> >> It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though.
> >> 
> >> Lada
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Andy
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
> > 
> > -- 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Ladislav Lhotka]

> On 26 Jul 2015, at 12:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
>  wrote:
> 
> Any are concrete actionable proposals?

Start rewriting 6020bis, but only if we decide to go that way - it is a 
difficult decision. I will be slightly in favor of doing so.

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>>> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
>>> be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
>>> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
>>> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
>>> 
>> 
>> This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87):
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod
>> 
>> (first item in Open mike section).
>> 
>> Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that are 
>> inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” sections.
>> 
>> I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data 
>> tree properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, 
>> and “profiles” for management protocols.
>> 
>> It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though.
>> 
>> Lada
>> 
>>> 
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

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




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

Re: [netmod] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

Any are concrete actionable proposals?

/js

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 12:46:22PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> 
> > On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> > be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
> > to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> > about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
> > 
> 
> This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87):
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod
> 
> (first item in Open mike section).
> 
> Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that are 
> inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” sections.
> 
> I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data 
> tree properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, 
> and “profiles” for management protocols.
> 
> It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though.
> 
> Lada
> 
> > 
> > Andy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 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

-- 
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] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Ladislav Lhotka]

> On 26 Jul 2015, at 02:26, Andy Bierman  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
> 

This is essentially what I proposed in Berlin (IETF 87):

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-netmod

(first item in Open mike section).

Another thing that I realized only recently is that some properties that are 
inherent to the conceptual data tree are defined in “XML Mapping” sections.

I think most YANG concepts and statements can be defined in terms of data tree 
properties. Separate documents would then define different encodings, and 
“profiles” for management protocols.

It would need massive changes in 6020bis text though.

Lada

> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 05:26:16PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
> be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
> to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
> about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.
> 

So what is your proposal?

/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] new YANG 1.1 Issue Y62: YANG should not be NETCONF-specific

[Andy Bierman]

Hi,

The WG should decide what it means for YANG to not
be NETCONF-specific.  Why does YANG define extensions
to NETCONF operations (like insert)? IMO the normative text
about NETCONF should not be in the YANG RFC.


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