> On Aug 13, 2015:4:03 PM, at 4:03 PM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Aug 7, 2015:12:09 PM, at 12:09 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> During the YANG Model Coordination Group webex call today, we discussed
>> this oper status and structure open issues. We're ready to help
>> facilitate the discussion between the different proposals
>> We could compare the pros/cons of the different solutions from our point
>> of view.
>>
>> To allow us some preparation time, alternate proposals should be posted
>> a week before the NETMOD interim meeting, i.e. Sept 3rd.
>>
>> The YANG Model Coordination Group
> Speaking as Co-chair:
>
> Just to clarify a bit on this. The purpose of the next Interim meeting
> is to close on the issues around the Open Config proposal. We meant to do
> this in Praha, but we could not get the right people to attend the meeting to
> have the right discussion. We need to close on this issue as soon as
> possible, as this is possibly blocking a lot of other WG-related work;
> therefore, if no alternative proposals are posted to discuss ahead of the
> interim meeting, then the original proposal will become the solution to move
> forward with in the WG. Alternatives must be complete proposals, not bullet
> points of complaints or such things - they must be a solution or they will
> not be allowed onto the agenda. As Benoit declared above, these must be
> posted ahead of the meeting and will be put on the agenda for the meeting to
> present/discuss/debate as well as to give everyone ample time to read and
> understand the document/s.
>
>
>
> Are you proposing that all existing RFCs with YANG modules in them be
> changed to "obsolete", and new modules published that move the data
> under a container named "device" (from some TBD module)? If not, then
> what is the proposal for data root placement for existing RFC modules?
>
> Are you also proposing that all YANG modules with config in them must
> define that config in a grouping, and all config must appear in a
> container named "config"? Also, that all config data must be replicated
> (i.e., use that grouping) under a config false container named <state>?
> This will be done even though in 90% of all servers, it doesn't take very
> long for intended config to become the active config? If not, then what
> is the exact proposal for usage within IETF modules?
>
> Everyone should understand the impact of these changes.
> Silence should not mean "I read the openconfig proposals and
> approve of these changes". Only emails to this list that state as much
> should mean that.
Andy,
Yes, people should read and understand the proposal. If they don’t like
it please come up with a
viable alternative. If the alternative is to do nothing, then propose that and
we will see what the consensus
is. If the proposal is to constructively alter parts of their proposal, thats
great too. After we get consensus on
the general approach, I will manage things issue-by-issue as we are doing with
other major initiatives in
NETMOD. What we will not do is continue to go round and round about points of
their proposal without
coming to any conclusions. We’ve had several interim meetings where they have
taken the time to
discuss and educate everyone that is interested in how their approach works and
why. To-date, there
are no alternatives being proposed resulting from those discussions - just more
debate/discussion.
What the management is declaring is that the time has come to move forward on
this, one way or
another.
—Tom
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> —Tom
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>>> Hello,
>>> NETMOD Working Group invites you to join this WebEx meeting.
>>>
>>> NETMOD Interm meeting on OpenConfig
>>> Thursday, September 10, 2015
>>> 11:00 am | Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) | 1 hr
>>>
>>> Join WebEx meeting
>>> <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m54c7bcbed84a08dc78fba128d500f8c0>
>>> Meeting number: 645 732 277
>>> Meeting password: 1234
>>>
>>> Join by phone
>>> 1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
>>> 1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
>>> Access code: 645 732 277
>>> Toll-free calling restrictions
>>> <http://www.webex.com/pdf/tollfree_restrictions.pdf>
>>>
>>> Add this meeting
>>> <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m17086d6b9810a2722c5dc8c64ec795b9>
>>> to your calendar.
>>>
>>> Can't join the meeting? Contact support. <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/mc>
>>>
>>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please note that this WebEx service allows audio and
>>> other information sent during the session to be recorded, which may be
>>> discoverable in a legal matter. By joining this session, you automatically
>>> consent to such recordings. If you do not consent to being recorded,
>>> discuss your concerns with the host or do not join the session.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
