[Context for the WG, I spent some time talking to Sue about the topics here over lunch. I don't think anything has gone wrong beyond a need for greater communication of the involved parties. Picking this email to provide context...]
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 06:16:33PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > I'm confused by this email thread because these slides state the authors are > looking for co-authors for netmod drafts. Are you as the co-chair of OSPF > declaring consensus on the OSPF yang model draft? Would you point me to the > email that indicates the WG Adoption call and conclusion? As discussed later on in thread and also over my conversation with Sue, there is existing work for OSPF and ISIS for defining yang modules. That's great! Talking with Sue, there's a slightly different focus of intent: > The drafts I suggested are I2RS drafts for the I2RS datastore that allow it > to configure the routing agent directly. The only way these two drafts > interact is if the option 4 proposed by the Yang 1.1 interim (created > 9/19/14) works. It is unclear if it will work - that's under discussion. > There is no reason to stop the I2RS DM/IM models required by I2RS charter > work while we find out if option 4 works. The issue I2RS has had over the lingering ambiguity of what the I2RS ephemeral config was going to look like meant that the only instructions those who were going to do I2RS models was to take their best effort. Sue's analysis, similar to that of others, was that a configuration and operational model was going to be required. Note that while I haven't read the drafts, the comment above suggests that part of the work in there was to identify the insertion points that I2RS would need for I2RS functionality in the model. This is definitely work that we need as a WG. My own impression of the OSPF and ISIS work was while it was active, it was not necessarily that visible and may be happening in the context of a design team. If so, the impression may have been that the work has stalled. One of the discussion points at the last IETF with Benoit and the netmod chairs during their tutorial session was that the IETF is in need of a discussion list covering active efforts. This would serve to help solve some of the common modeling issues along with tracking work that may be common across models and deserving refactoring into a shared IETF module. An example of such work is the ACL work. I'm under the impression we have yet to create such a coordinating list? Further response later in thread... -- Jeff _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
