Hi, Joe, WG, As a clarification:
For this polling, we're trying to figure out if there is a consensus to use one of the existing documents as a starting point. If there is, the chairs' assumption is to ask the authors to move the work to IVY, instead of just referencing it progressed in other places. It may still take some time for the WG (e.g., via design team discussion, interim meeting(s)) to tailor the work to fully fit the IVY charter, that's why we say "evolve it to become the network inventory base model". Best Regards, Qiufang From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 10:26 PM To: maqiufang (A) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; opsawg <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model Since you copied opsawg, I'll make it clear my reply is as a contributor. As I said at the first IVY meeting, I like the CCAMP work a bit more as a base inventory draft. It feels more data-centric and less use-case centric if that makes sense. That said, it's adopted work in CCAMP. What would happen to it? Would it move to IVY? Would IVY work just reference it as it progresses through CCAMP? While I like option 1, I think perhaps option 3 might be more viable, but using the model of the CCAMP work where it leverages previous ENTITY-MIB concepts while staying true to common inventory. Joe From: Inventory-yang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of maqiufang (A) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 at 02:22 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, opsawg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model Hi Working Group, It's now time to start considering how to move forward with the inventory base model. We have two different documents that could be used as a starting point for our work or, in case the working group believes none of them is "good enough", we can start a brand new ID. In case the latter option is chosen, Daniele and I will write a -00 version including just the table of content and what we'd like to be covered in each section. The document will then be handed over to a pool of authors which will bring it till the WG adoption. Hence, we will have a 3 weeks polling starting today. We decided to make it a bit longer than usual because this time the working group is requested to review two drafts instead of one. This mail starts a 3 weeks polling, terminating on September 15th, where we would like the working group to express your preference among: 1. Adopt draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model 2. Adopt draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model 3. Start a brand new document from scratch as described above In the week after the closure of the polling (between September 18 and 25) we will have an IVY interim meeting to discuss the issues/concerns raised during the polling ( A separate mail will be sent). Thank you, Qiufang and Daniele
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
