> On Sep 10, 2015:9:45 AM, at 9:45 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
>
> On 9/10/2015 8:52 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
>> The desire from the co-chairs and AD anyways, is that we do not start a
>> requirements draft
>> as a result of today’s meeting (and mailing list confirmation of the
>> outcome). As Kent mentioned earlier
>> in this thread, to document this list of detailed requirements on the
>> mailing list. The motivation for this
>> versus a draft, is that waiting for a draft to completely is a drag on
>> progress, and we don’t want to
>> gate or slow things down. Putting them in a place different from the
>> existing draft also helps with
>> the perceptional issues that were raised earlier.
>>
>> —Tom
>
> This works as long as we break this seemingly endless requirements
> discussion cycle that keeps coming up when try to discuss solutions.
>
> From my perspective we already have documented operator requirements
> that seem to have at least have 'rough' consensus. Namely:
> draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01: Sections 3, 4, 5.
> (note, which doesn't require specific convention-based or
> protocol-based solution)
> draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00: Section 1.1
> (note, which does *not* include a requirement for /device)
>
> On 9/10/2015 8:21 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> Yes, we must have a list of requirements that everyone agrees to. We
>> will subsequently put it into an email to the WG for final on-list
>> consensus.
>
> So should I/someone extract the mentioned section and send it to the
> list now so that there's no ambiguity of what is being ased for folks to
> agree to in the meeting?
That would be very helpful. However, Kent/I agreed to keep a list
that we will put together (we could use your thread as the start) and push
that to the list after the meeting to which we will bring a call for
consensus on immediately. The plan is to close on the requirements officially
ASAP.
—Tom
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
> PS The last time I tried to capture an issue on this list I was
> basically told to write a requirements draft, now the answer is the
> opposite...
>
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2015:8:26 AM, at 8:26 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think another question is if the current *requirements* text good /close
>>> enough for a -00 wg document....
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>> On September 10, 2015 8:20:34 AM Nadeau Thomas <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Sep 10, 2015:2:32 AM, at 2:32 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in my view, section 4.5 goes a bit too far in making a certain
>>>>> solution part of the requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The solutions that have been written up have different properties in
>>>>> terms of data modeling impact, device implementation impact, NMS
>>>>> implementation impact and backwards compatibility impact. Furthermore,
>>>>> we need to acknowledge that not all devices are asynchronous. These
>>>>> aspects need to be taken into account when selecting a solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is needed is clarity what the requirements are that we find
>>>>> agreement on. I believe it is possible to tweak the text in section 4
>>>>> to something people can agree on. But as it is written in -01, I do
>>>>> not think we are there yet.
>>>> Is it that you disagree with the specifics of what is written
>>>> so that minor refinements would satisfy your need for clarity, or do you
>>>> believe there are entire requirements that either do not exist, or should
>>>> be removed from section 4.5? If the case is the former, please be
>>>> constructive
>>>> and provide proposed changes to the text; if the latter, please specify
>>>> that as well.
>>>>
>>>> —Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> /js
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:12:58PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>> Juergen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like you are agreeing with the requirements but not the
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>> I think this is a valuable distinction, i.e., that it's possible to agree
>>>>>> with one but not the other. I'd also like to point out that the first
>>>>>> part
>>>>>> of the discussion is limited to requirements only so we can focus on the
>>>>>> former before delving in to the latter .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On September 9, 2015 6:01:20 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:16:06PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The requirements.
>>>>>>>> If there are still clarifications needed around the requirements in
>>>>>>>> draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 section 4, or around the requirement
>>>>>>>> that the YANG models need some sort of hierarchy
>>>>>>>> (draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure), like for the routing models,
>>>>>>>> ... tomorrow interim meeting is your chance, or between now and then on
>>>>>>>> the mailing list.
>>>>>>> For the record (since I won't be able to join the call): I disagree
>>>>>>> with some of the details in the description of the requirement in
>>>>>>> section 4.5. I agree with the part that says that it should be
>>>>>>> possible to 'easily' locate the operational state corresponding to
>>>>>>> configuration state (and I would add that 'easily' means both for
>>>>>>> humans and machines). I would go even further to say that it should
>>>>>>> not just be 'easy' but also be 'robust'. What I disagree with is the
>>>>>>> part that suggests every 'selector' should be encoded in the schema
>>>>>>> path. Note that I am talking about the schema used on a device, I am
>>>>>>> not talking about the schema used within an NMS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /js
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>>>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>>>>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>>> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
