[With AD hat on] Hi,
I was really hoping that there would be more support for adopting this work in OPSAWG, given it covers both YANG and IPFIX it does seem like the correct home for it. In general, I am keen that IETF continues to flesh out and improve YANG models for the protocols standardized in IETF. I'm also not sure whether I would realistically be able to AD sponsor this document, given that I am new in the AD role, and this is currently a long document. The document and YANG model both look like they are in reasonable shape, but probably could do with some more reviews. I have a question for the authors: Would it be feasible to split this work up into smaller chunks that would make it easier to review. E.g. to put the packet-sampling and bulk-data-export into separate drafts? Perhaps pare back some optional functionality. And a question for the WG: 2) If this work was split up, and if I ask very nicely ;-), then is it possible that a few more people would be willing to help review a smaller shorter version of this document? Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke) > Sent: 18 April 2020 22:13 > To: opsawg <[email protected]> > Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption: draft-boydseda-ipfix-psamp-bulk-data- > yang-model > > As was discussed in the April 7 virtual interim, we are doing a three-week > call for opsawg adoption for this work. > > This draft was an AD-sponsored work with Ignas and has now moved under > Rob. It has received a number of reviews (some thorough, some more > cursory), and it is destined to obsolete 6728 (Configuration Data Model > for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP) > Protocols) if ratified. Because of that latter point, making this a WG > item seems more appropriate than pushing it through as an AD-sponsored > document. > > To that end, does the WG feel this work is important and wants to take it > up? In a nutshell, this document breaks up the original YANG module into > three for the IPFIX collector and exporter functions, the PSAMP functions, > and the templates for bulk data exports. While it preserves the SCTP > support, SCTP is no longer mandatory. It also adds support for ietf- > interfaces and hardware management (those did not exist at the time of > 6728). > > The reason for the three-week call is to give people enough time to read > through and digest this document. Please reply with support (or > objections) as well as comments by May 10, 2020. > > Thanks. > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
