Hi all, I support developing a separate module for the common types/groupings/...
This approach has worked quite well within TEAS and CCAMP WG. I agree that there are some risks with this work: my suggestion is just be aware of the risks and be careful to avoid them. Working in parallel on L3NM, L2NM and the common modules would really help identifying what is really common and what it is not. The suggestion we have got in CCAMP WG was not to send to IESG the common module alone but to send it with at least one of the modules importing it. I would suggest to follow the same approach in OPSWG if a separate module for the common types/groupings/... is developed. Italo > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: giovedì 28 maggio 2020 19:15 > To: 'tom petch' <[email protected]>; 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)' > <[email protected]>; 'Oscar González de Dios' > <[email protected]> > Cc: 'opsawg' <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions > > OK, thanks, that's clear. > > I *think* (I was on the call where this was discussed) that it was exactly the > worry about importing a whole module that led to the suggestion of having a > separate module just for common types. As I understand it, there was a desire > to have a common type used in several modules, but some implementers felt > that this would lead them to have to import the whole module (not just the > type). > > The idea of a separate module certainly has some risks associated: not > capturing the right things; including too much "stuff"; forcing commonality > where none exists. > > There is, as you suggest, an alternative that each module goes its own way and > there is no sharing. I *think* we received a strong steer that sharing is a > good > idea. > > Best, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch <[email protected]> > Sent: 28 May 2020 17:26 > To: 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)' <[email protected]>; 'Oscar > González de Dios' <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Cc: 'opsawg' <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions > > From: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> > Sent: 28 May 2020 14:29 > > Hey Tom, > > Is there a typo in your email? You said... > > > So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead to a bad > > outcome; it is a question of looking carefully across the range of > > documents to see what is, or is likely to be common. > > I wondered whether you intended a "not" in there somewhere. > > <tp> > Adrian, > no, no 'not' was intended. The danger is taking e.g. the 50 or so pages of > identity, typedef, grouping in L2NM and assuming that they form a good > starting point or, worse still, making a logical OR of the four documents > under > consideration and to create a monster document and assuming that that is a > good basis. > > Critical assessment is what is needed IMHO. Sometimes it is better to create > your own version of vpn-id or ODUC than import a hundred pages of someone > else's in order to get them. > > Tom Petch > > If you wrote what you intended, could you explain a little further what the > danger is? > > Best, > Adrian > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of tom petch > Sent: 26 May 2020 17:05 > To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; Oscar González > de Dios <[email protected]> > Cc: opsawg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions > > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]> > Sent: 21 May 2020 15:43 > > > > 2. L3NM > Revision of the three main issues: > Implementation Report by Cisco. It has two main issues > (https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/issues/110) > - Common module to have all the L3NM specific requirements. Type-like > module. > [Anton]: It makes implementation simpler. Does not generate unnecessary > dependencies > [Adrian]: It depends on if we need module for specific types, to avoid > unnecessary imports. Also don't you only need to import types, not the entire > module? > [Qin]: With L3SM we did not take an augmentation approach. If there are > common types defined in both models, then we may need to find the common > components. We should decouple of L3SM. > [Sriram]: Prefer to have a separate type-file for the specific parameters. > [Oscar]: Define a common type-file for the service models. > [Qin]: Is it possible to manage it as an independent draft? > > [Oscar in github issues]: After the discussions, it seems reasonable to have a > separate Yang module to contain the types. The suggestion is to write the > module to cover the four service models (client service models, l3sm, l2sm and > Network service models, l2nm, l3nm). It seems reasonable to include this > module in l3nm draft instead of creating a new one to avoid dependencies. > Samier, Dan and Anton to collaborate for a first version of the split > > As chair, I want to call this out since it sounds like the authors made a > decision > here, and I want to make sure the whole WG has a chance to weigh in. In > reading these minutes and issue #110, I can see the value of a types module to > avoid what may be confusing imports, but I want to know if anyone on the WG > has a different opinion. > > <tp> > Joe > The four documents are not spelled out but referred to in shorthand and while > I think I know which are intended, that IMHO needs spelling out. > In principle, a common types is a no-brainer provided it is done early enough > - > before anything becomes an RFC! - and with limited enough scope. > NETMOD got it right but did have decades of SMI experience to go on, RTGWG > got it right, with TEAS it is less clear while layer0-types has changed much > over > its short life - is it right now? May be. > So carving out the current types (etc) will likely lead to a bad outcome; it > is a > question of looking carefully across the range of documents to see what is, or > is likely to be common. The higher up the stack you go the more likely items > are to be common but equally the more likely it is that someone has been > there already. > And if you look at existing types modules, it took a while for the penny to > drop > but they end up as separate I-D, better still with a different author to the > importing I-D; a no brainer really. > > Tom Petch > > 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
