As I said in my original comment, I'd like to see this separation. Various recent conversations suggest that scheduling (services, resources, ACLs, etc.) is becoming a Big Thing. Having a common model to facilitate this would be really helpful.
QUESTION FOR THE CHAIRS If this is split out, does it o into an individual draft for a further adoption poll, or can it be split into a second WG ID at once? A From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> On Behalf Of maqiufang (A) Sent: 07 October 2023 11:48 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG] Should the schedule YANG model be seperated from draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl? Hi, all Based on the comments we've received during the adoption call of draft-ma-opsawg-ucl-acl [1], the authors would like to start a separate thread to highlight a question raised by Adrian: should the schedule model be moved out into a separate document? And we would like to collect more feedback from the WG. It is indeed that the ietf-schedule YANG model in the draft is now designed to be applicable in other common scheduling contexts and not specific to ACL policies. The authors already see some usage of it in other date and time based context[2], and it might seem awkward for it (and other potential ones in the future) to reference draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl for reusing the scheduling groupings. It would be good to know if the WG think it useful for this model to be defined in a separate document, so that the authors will take the time to work on it if there is consensus. Would appreciate any of your input, thanks a lot! [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests / Best Regards, Qiufang
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
