From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Italo Busi <[email protected]> Sent: 24 August 2020 10:56
I support the adoption of this draft as WG document I think the scope of the draft/model can also be extended to be applicable to any service-type module and not being limited to only L2VPN and L3VPN. For example we can call it svc-common rather than vpn-common. Regarding the approach, my preference is to include in the common module all the types/groupings which are common. In order not to delay the progress of L3NM, it is possible to follow the same approach that has been followed in CCAMP WG with layer0-types: once L3NM is ready for WG LC, it is possible to move forward for WG LC only the common types/groupings which are needed by L3NM (as first revision of the common YANG module) and to move the types/groupings needed by other on-going work (e.g., L2NM) into a new draft which is intended to become a second revision of the common YANG module. <tp> Italo A point to be aware of is that there are rules about what you can and cannot do when revising a YANG module. RFC7950 s.11 has a long list thereof of which those relating to enum and type have come up in the past. If you want to do something that is not permitted, then you have to change the module name, which would seem to defeat the purpose of this particular exercise so it is important to get it right first time.. Tom Petch My 2 cents Italo > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: giovedì 13 agosto 2020 14:49 > To: opsawg <[email protected]> > Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn-common > > Hello, WG members. On the IETF 108 virtual meeting, Oscar presented the > status of the L3NM, L2NM, and the VPN common work. While this VPN > common YANG module started as an individual document (per the chairs’ > request), the L2NM and L3NM modules need to choose a direction for how to > handle common typedefs and groupings between them. > > On the virtual meeting we did a hum which indicated “Pianissimo” support. > Again, the hum system had some interesting rules, so this is not conclusive, > but seems to favor that this common module work should exist as its own, > standalone document that both L2NM and L3NM will consume. In this > manner, one would not need to import either L2NM or L3NM to make use > of/extend these common attributes. > > To that end, the chairs would like a call for adoption of draft-bgbw-opsawg- > vpn-common. Additionally, comments on the approach and the choice of > common attributes are welcome, especially from those that were unable to > attend the IETF 108 virtual meeting. > > This serves as a two week call for adoption ending on August 27, 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
