Tom: Thank you for this feedback.
This error in the model comes from the initial assumptions during the start of these models. This error was a design choice in the early models based on the flux in Yang during the NMDA model discussions. Benoit's advice was to try to get models out and then revise. The security ADs were pushing the working group to make progress. Benoit and the security ADs wanted progress. The tenant of "replication" works in that environment. Versioning in Yang models is still a work in progress. This round of versioning is still not complex enough for BGP policy modeling. (And IMHO/AFAIK Open Config Yang modeling is behind IETF modeling in complex versioning). Therefore, the error in that advice to Linda Dunbar and Paul Jeong is mine. Paul, his co-authors, and his students have done the best possible based on that advice. Time has moved on in both realms (netmod) and security. The current security ADs were not privy to these pieces of advice. Would you suggest going back to square-1 to rework each of these models? If so, should this be the first order of work? Just a warning, refactoring to remove the "replication" works best as Paul Jeong has done it. It is careful and precise work reviewed by a few experts. The working group reviews for high level content. Paul Jeong's presentation at IETF 113 gave that type of review. I wish we would have had a longer time period, but hybrid meetings shorten "off-line meetings". WGs focus on protocol content (routing or security WG) struggle to maintain moment cycling around refactoring. Combing the refactoring work with additional work helps keep a working group functional. Any advice? Sue Opinion: The IETF needs to strong cross-area management as we head into 5G work. Security in all areas is key for 5G needs. -----Original Message----- From: t petch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 5:05 AM To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong; [email protected] Cc: Roman Danyliw; Panwei (William); Henk Birkholz; tom petch; yangpenglin; Susan Hares; DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA Subject: Re: [I2nsf] Request for Comments, Interest and Support in I2NSF Re-Chartering On 24/03/2022 07:38, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote: > Hi I2NSF WG, > As you know, our I2NSF WG will discuss the I2NSF Re-Chartering > at IETF-113 I2NSF WG Session today. > > I attach the text of the re-chartering as pdf and txt files. Those that have worked on the current five I2NSF I-D will know that they do not subscribe to the basic tenet of 'reference not replicate' and in doing so have created many issues of lack of coherence (some of which have been resolved, some of which may never be resolved) and have created much additional work. In a sense, the current work is built on foundations of sand, which may or may not support ongoing work. What is needed, and for me it is the overwhelming priority, before any new models are crafted, is a 'common' I-D to reduce or eliminate this replication even if it cannot be applied immediately to those five I-D. The current charter hints at the need for this in its bullets and in its list of deliverables. The terminology draft might have done this but has gone in a slightly different direction. Common YANG capability statements are an obvious example but even a common base of plain text would make the work simpler, less error-prone. Tom Petch > Our five core I2NSF YANG data model drafts are almost completed. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > 1. Capability YANG Data Model > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model -27 > > 2. NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface- dm-22 > > 3. Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-m odel-16 > > 4. Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-inter face-dm-17 > > 5. Registration Interface YANG Data Model > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interfac e-dm-15 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- > > The three of them (i.e., 1, 2, and 3) got the feedback of the IESG and > the revisions have been sent to the IESG reviewers. > > The remaining two (i.e., 4, 5) are well-synchronized with the others. > I will present the updates of them today's I2NSF WG. > I attach the slides for them for your easy checking. > > Our AD Roman has concerns about the low energy of our I2NSF WG for the new > work items in the I2NSF Re-chartering. > > Could you speak up your voice about your comments, interest, and support of > our I2NSF Re-Chartering? > > See you online at IETF-113 I2NSF WG Session today. > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
