For the OSPF YANG model, we are planning to go directly to option 1. Please let the authors know if you see this as a problem.
Thanks, Acee From: rtgwg <rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akat...@gmail.com<mailto:akat...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM To: Routing WG <rt...@ietf.org<mailto:rt...@ietf.org>> Subject: Fwd: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors At IETF 98 in RTGWG, I mentioned the need for clear guidelines to handle the changes coming for structuring YANG models. This is the resulting guidance. Regards, Alia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com<mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> Date: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM Subject: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors To: NETMOD Working Group <net...@ietf.org<mailto:net...@ietf.org>> Dear all, Now that the new NETMOD and NETCONF charters have been approved, it's time to think about the guidelines for YANG module authors. The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) addresses the so-called "OpState problem" that has been the subject of much discussion in the IETF. NMDA is still in development, and there will be a transition period before NMDA solutions are universally available. The NETMOD Datastore Design Team and the Routing Yang Architecture Design Team have worked with Alia and Benoit to create initial guidelines for how the NMDA, as defined in draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/>, impacts Yang models. The draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines/> individual draft was foundational in helping creating those guidelines. If you have questions or concerns on how these guidelines should apply to work of interest, please contact your WG Chairs or ADs. It is our strong recommendation, as ADs with agreement from the NETMOD WG Chairs, that models SHOULD move as quickly as possible to the NMDA. The specific approach to be taken for models being developed now and during the NMDA transition period should be based on both the expected usage and the maturity of the data model. 1. New models and models that are not concerned with the operational state of configuration information SHOULD immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible. 2. Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. Then derived versions of these models SHOULD be created, either by hand or with suitable tools, that follow the current modeling strategies. In some cases, the non-NMDA model may be an existing model and not derived from the NMDA model. In all cases, the NMDA and non-NMDA modules SHOULD be published in the same document, with NMDA modules in the document main body and the non-NMDA modules in an Appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations are available. The non-NMDA module names should include ’-state’ appended. We would like to thank Kent Watsen, Lou Berger, Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Acee Lindem, Chris Hopps, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and all others who helped develop these guidelines. Regards, Alia Atlas, Routing AD Deborah Brungard, Routing AD Alvaro Retana, Routing AD Warren Kumari, Operations & Management AD Benoit Claise, Operations & Management AD _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list net...@ietf.org<mailto:net...@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rt...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list OSPF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
