Thanks, Tom. I was going to reply sooner and got side-tracked. See below with JMC>
On Jun 17, 2020, at 04:37, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: From: OPSAWG <opsawg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> Sent: 16 June 2020 21:47 To: 'Joe Clarke (jclarke)'; 'opsawg' Hi Joe, I support adoption. I have an interest in this work from co-chairing L3SM and L2SM, and I have been attending some of the virtual meetings although I haven't made great contributions to the work. It seems to me that this work falls in scope alongside L3NM and I think it is similarly necessary to construct a top-to-bottom YANG-based management system for L2VPN services. The discussion of breaking out common components into a separate module, possibly in a separate document, is worth having. It appears that some implementations struggle with imports of named elements rather than whole modules.. Rather than argue about how to correctly handle imports, it seems to make sense to structure our modules to be as useful as possible. <tp> Well, that discussion seems well under way with the momentum of a large tank so adopting this is not adopting this but adopting (likely) two I-D one of which will be the carved-out types and the other of which will be the residue. I think it wrong to adopt such a concept and that it would be better to have WG consensus on the carve-up first. JMC> Yes, that discussion does seem to be underway. That said, I don’t see it limited to the L2NM. It has ramifications to the already adopted L3NM. My preference as a contributor would be to work JMC> these together. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
