Hi Tom, I agree that revisions of this YANG model should follow the rules in section 11 of RFC7950.
I am proposing to select a name for the module which reflects it potential wider scope even if the first revision of the module has a limited scope. In this way, there is no need to change the module name to reflect a broader scope of future revisions. Thanks, Italo > -----Original Message----- > From: tom petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: lunedì 24 agosto 2020 13:37 > To: Italo Busi <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <[email protected]>; opsawg <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: draft-bgbw-opsawg-vpn- > common > > 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
