On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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? > Yes - I spoke with Benoit about creating a rtg-yang-interest mailing list. It hadn't made it to the top of my priority queue, but I plan on working on that this Friday. Alia > Further response later in thread... > -- Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
