Hi Benoit, On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Alia, > > Now that you are back from vacation... > >> Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-netmod-08-05: Yes >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> I do think that it would be helpful for this charter to discuss some of >> the >> needed WG interactions. In particular, where encodings of YANG are >> defined elsewhere (i.e. draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-04), there should be >> coordination of the impact of changes to the YANG language. >> > We could debate whether draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor should have been in core > or netmod. > I propose to treat this doc. as the exception, and to keep the guideline > that mappings should be done in NETMOD. Sure - but having an indication of other WGs to coordinate with would be useful. > Another question is where do you see the discussion of device profiles >> or sets of YANG modules needed to meet a particular purpose going? To >> me, this doesn't read as in scope for this charter and yet I don't think >> that >> we've thought through the right place for them. I'm ok with continued >> discussion for routing-related ones in RTGWG - but not all device >> profiles >> (i.e. a profile of modules needed for a firewall) belong anywhere near >> Routing. >> > Good point for the profiles. > For the top of the rack switch profile, RTGWG is the best place. > I propose to add a sentence that will leave the door open for NETMOD > The NETMOD WG may include work on YANG modules device profiles that do not > otherwise fall under the charter of any other IETF working group. > That sounds good to me; I'm a bit concerned that NETMOD isn't the right place for the profiles, but we don't have a flood of them or a better place right now. Regards, Alia > Regards, Benoit > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
