> On Oct 25, 2018, at 06:12, Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Joel, WG, > > I published a new draft some days ago covering the specific concerns and > editorial changes requested during WGLC. This included the addition of an > extension statement which covered machine parsing of pre-defined tags which > was mentioned by multiple people, and is the only significant change made. I > would think we'd have rough consensus (at least) at this point.
Yes, I don’t think we need to belabor the edits since I think that discussion tailed of to a reasonable conclusion. > > I do not agree that we should restrict the usefulness of this work by > removing the ability of the module author or the vendor/implementer to add > tags due to a single persons view of how they might use the technology. > There's nothing gained, and there's obvious loss of functionality. I’m trying not to inject my own opinion into prejudging an outcome here. I do see it as significant point of contention in the working group last call. If I were asking for consensus on the point specifically I do not believe that we have arrived at a point of rough consensus yet. > Thanks, Thanks for getting us to this point. Joel > Chris. > >> On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Joel Jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This WG LC closed on the 16th. >> >> Working group last calls serve a useful forcing function even for drafts >> that may end up looking unready as a result due to the attention. If I am >> making a judgement call here based on the feedback received during this >> period and the prior one. >> >> I will try and summarize the major concerns that see expressed with this >> draft. >> >> Jurgen had a significant list of comments and edits >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/qUGyGIxHJKsEXZsG6r3P7R0nirg >> >> Followed up by Christian >> >> One detail teased out there and in other comments bears revisting >> >> Juergen >>> I do not like this. YANG has extension statements and having to >>> parse stuff out of free text description statements seems to be a >>> movement backwards. >> >> Christian >> This is used by the human implementer of the module (i.e., they need to >> write code to implement the module). As such it was not intended for machine >> parsing. >> >> Juergon >> I am personally not convinced. The whole reason why we have YANG is >> automation and I believe people will go and write tools to extract >> tags and having to extract them out of free form text looks like a >> step backwards. >> >> Andy >> >> It is more than a step backwards. >> There is an unexplained procedure for declaring the module-tag conformance, >> in addition to the module-tag mappings. >> >> Alex >> >> I have no issue with systems using tags to classify or organize modules, >> however this seems to me like something that would be specific to the system >> doing the classifying. It would not be something that needs to be specified >> in the module itself (except perhaps as freeform description text), and it >> certainly would not need to involve the NETCONF server. What would a server >> do with module classification data? (unless it is also implementing some >> kind of module browsing interface, in which case it might be used to supply >> the browser with data) >> >> Wether or not this is intended for or will be parsed by machines remains a >> significant unresolved concern. The actual mechanics of restricting what >> goes into them however seems fairly straight forward. >> >> Absent consensus on the above concern this document cannot probably advance, >> we do have the opportunity for significant face to face discussion in the >> near future so using that to arrive at a conclusion would probably allow >> this work to progress or stop. >> >> Thanks >> Joel >> >>> On Oct 2, 2018, at 13:21, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This is start of a two week working group last-call for >>> draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 a current netmod working group >>> document. >>> >>> You may review at: >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 >>> >>> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not >>> support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the >>> document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like >>> to see addressed once the document is a WG document. >>> >>> The prior discussion of my mistaken WG adoption call is here >>> >>> commences here: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg21290.html >>> >>> In particular Andy's concerns expressed in that thread here: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg21348.html >>> >>> are probably important to tease out in considering this for last call. >>> >>> so that we are clear on dates. This last call timing resets and runs >>> from 10/2/18 - 10/16/18 >>> >>> Joel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
