John: 

 

I’m sorry John if this statement seemed harsh.  It was not my intent.  I 
apologize to you and all the co-authors.  I’m not sleeping as much as I should 
due to the time-zone shift from the US to Europe.  My “Ok” in the next email 
was me trying to take my foot out of my mouth while sleepy.  Again – I’m sorry 
if I offend.  

 

The concept and structure of the capabilities modules is strong, but it is not 
obvious to the newcomer.   In a similar way, the structure of a routing 
protocol such as an SPF is strong, but not obvious.  Justifiably, these 
structures may be close to perfect to those who have worked to attain this 
work.  The thought of “being perfect in your eyes” – was simply to acknowledge 
you and your co-authors have reason to be proud of you structure. However, we 
are in a catch-22.   These yang models must be adopted by newcomers who will 
not implement something that is does not seem reasonably easy to work.  

 

My alternative solution was to suggest we could refactor the yang modules into 
basic + augments.  There is a continuum – most efficient architecture --- to 
most obvious.  I was wondering if we could agree on the first principles of 
trying to refactor for readability.  If we could try to move toward the middle 
of the continuum then perhaps we could can the adoption.  In a second 
suggestion – I want to suggest we have the following types of things:  nsf 
client information, capability, monitoring, nsf device information.  We could 
group modules into a set in the Yang catalog.   

 

These are higher-level principles to discuss before we start reworking pieces.  
 I need your help to consider if we can consider these alternative in order to 
increase adoption of these good principles. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team?

 

Wow.

 

I have NEVER said that "my" (and it is NOT just mine!) model is architecturally 
perfect. I am offended by that statement. Am I the ONLY author on this draft?

 

Rather than denigrate the efforts of the team that is building the model, it 
would be much more helpful to provide specifics. For example, what specifically 
is "too hard to understand"? How are we supposed to fix something given only 
vague comments like this?

 

I also object to your statement "Feedback from product groups are that your 
model are difficult to understand." I have worked with people inside and 
**outside** of Huawei on understanding and implementing the model. None have 
said that it is "too difficult to understand".

 

I have no idea what "something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users" actually means. Saying that the YANG is "readable" is a matter of 
opinion. I note that, for example, there is no ability of the current YANG 
models to provide reflection or introspection. That impacts usability.

 

Providing insults and no alternative suggestions is not helpful.

 

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Susan Hares <sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:

John: 

 

Let me propose something different.  There are 2 priorities: 

 

1)      Priority 1 – something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users 

2)      Priority 2 – something that is architecturally clean

 

I understand you feel your base model is architecturally perfect.  Feedback 
from product groups are that your model are difficult to understand.   The 
models from the teams that have worked on the hackathon have been understood 
and worked on by the teams. 

 

We should work toward both. An attitude that says “my model’s perfect” does not 
align with the yang model’s readably .

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team?

 

I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.

 

That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:

 

   1) There should be one, and only one, information model.

        a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those contributions 
MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a new one

   2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per se, but 
rather, requirements for models. 

   3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model work.

       a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or define 
policies

 

I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that the 
other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to that draft.

 

I propose that we wait on further data model draft definition until some people 
(I will help) on the design team can formulate guidelines and perhaps examples 
to properly derive data models from our info model.

 

regards,

John

 

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dun...@huawei.com> wrote:

Thanks to many people contributions. We now have many drafts on the information 
model and data model for I2NSF:

 

Information model:

draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02

draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04

draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02

draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03

draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01

 

Data Model:

draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03

draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02

draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02

draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01

 

 

But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed to 
improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both 
Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces. 

So we are going to form a design team to work on it. 

 

If you are interested in participate, please click on this doodle poll: 
https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca

 

For people not in Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call in. 

 

Thank you very much for the contribution. 

 

Linda & Adrian

 


_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf




-- 

regards,

John




-- 

regards,

John

_______________________________________________
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Reply via email to