Hi Kent,
Re-reading Juergen's email, I think that his main concern was whether
there would be sufficient reviewers of this draft. It is slightly
tricky because this draft is covering configuration that I believe many
network device vendors require and support to make their devices
function in a sensible fashion, but are not standardized anywhere
because until YANG came along there has been little need to do so (since
the features don't generally need to inter-operate between devices).
In terms of milestones, I agree with Juergen, that it is really the
cross reviews from other device vendors that is most important. I.e. to
confirm that these configuration knobs are generally applicable to a
broad set of devices. So I would think that the next steps would
consist of:
- confirmation that this configuration is generally common across vendors.
- check whether there is any other common interface level
configuration that is missing and should also be covered.
- see if it is possible to agree on some more concrete default values
for some of the settings.
- see if there is any additional operational state that should also be
made available. I think that it is likely that some needs to be added.
- see if any further explanation or documentation of the defaults
described in this draft are required.
However, I don't think that this really should end up being a large YANG
module, or that it should take a particularly long time to standardize,
presuming that we can get the reviews and agreement of course.
Does that help clarify your/Juergen's concerns?
Thanks,
Rob
On 29/02/2016 23:07, Kent Watsen wrote:
The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread
never closed properly.
Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic milestones, that were
never addressed. Robert, can you please try to address Juergen’s
concerns now?
Also, there were only a two responses before indicating willingness to
review the draft as it progresses (thanks Dan and Martin). Can others
that support this draft and willing to review this draft say so?
Thanks,
Netmod Chairs
From: netmod <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Kent Watsen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM
To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room support for
adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft. The
minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing
list, which I am doing now.
Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item
and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please
comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG
Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward
with the document.
Thanks,
Kent
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
