Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Lou Berger 
On 01/23/2018 03:26 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
>> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
>> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
>> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
>> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
>> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
>> this time.
>>
> 
> If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
> Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
> again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
> alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
> technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
> g there...)

Focusing a moment on the future and the technical, it would be most
helpful to have a document that describes SM with NMDA and YL-bis.  This
would at least be a starting point for WG discussion.  It might even
help show if the current plan is flawed.

I, personally, suspect that a proposal that changes basic approach, or
revisits past arguments, will end up in another round of very long
discussions based on what each party thinks is optimal. Therefore, I
hope that the initial proposed solution would take a minimalistic change
approach in order to garner widest support.  This consensus foundation
could then provide a foundation for further optimization to the degree
supported by WG consensus.

Lou


> 
> /js
> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Lou Berger 

One additional point below.

n 01/24/2018 09:35 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kent Watsen  writes:
>>
>>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>>> Nov 6th.
>>>
>>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>>> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>>> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>>> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>>> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>>> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>>> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
>> I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
>> proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
>> *both* document authors?
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 

A document moving away from the original authors intent or even
agreement has happened before in the IETF.  I'm aware of several cases
of it *right now*, one in this group the others in different areas.  In
the case of this group, the original (lead) author choose to remove
themselves from the work and others in the WG took over the pen.  In the
other WGs, the original authors dropped the work and new authors took it
over.  In the case of the work that I initiated that this happened with,
I'm not sure if I'm listed or not as it's been so long since I looked at
the draft, but I know I'm no longer on the front page and the WG chair
appointed editor is a non-original author who I recommended.  So your
current position is not unique, nor counter to our process.

As a reminder, it is the responsibility of the document editors to
document WG consensus -- they have a lot of latitude in how they do
this, but in the end, WG consensus is what should be captured once an a
topic is discussed. It is also the WG chairs responsibility to ensure
that a document reflects WG consensus, this includes ensuring that the
document editors/authors follow consensus and appointing editors when
the authors need assistance in this.  An editor can be appointed if you
and Martin think this is necessary, but I think the preference of the
chairs is that we don't at this late date.

Lou


> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html
> 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.
> 
> IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
> discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
> depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
> judgement call where the working group participants stand today.
> 
>>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>>> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>>> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>>> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>>> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>>> that normatively reference the current draft.
>>>
>>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
>> Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
>> expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
>> than hand-waving.
>>
>> I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
>> more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>>
>> Lada
>>
>>> we also agree
>>> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>>> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>>> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>>> supporting rfc7895bis.
>>>
>>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
>>> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission 
>>> and advancement. 
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Ladislav Lhotka 
On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 09:35 -0500, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Kent Watsen  writes:
> > 
> > > Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on
> > > Nov 6th.
> > > 
> > > Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> > > address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> > > been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> > > NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> > > These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> > > consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> > > advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> > 
> > I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> > proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> > *both* document authors?
> 
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 
> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

Ongoing threads are mentioned here, and they have to be resolved.

> 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.

What would be fatally flawed are two different versions of schema mount.

> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.
> 
> IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
> discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
> depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
> judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

An author objecting against his own document in the IETF LC - this sounds pretty
crazy. If possible, I'd prefer to find consensus within the WG.

Lada

> 
> > > Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> > > proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> > > to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> > > operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> > > statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> > > that normatively reference the current draft.
> > > 
> > > In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> > 
> > Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> > expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> > than hand-waving.
> > 
> > I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> > more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
> > 
> > Lada
> > 
> > > we also agree
> > > with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> > > allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> > > thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> > > supporting rfc7895bis.
> > > 
> > > The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this
> > > message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission
> > > and advancement. 
> > > 
> > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kent, Lou, and Joel
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ___
> > > netmod mailing list
> > > netmod@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder 
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:35:49AM -0500, joel jaeggli wrote:
> 
> Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
> group's document.
> 
> The consensus call was made back here:
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

So then go ahead and resolve _all_ comments that were made during
WG last call.
 
> To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
> the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
> To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
> clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
> proceed with an update in a timely fashion.

I believe the YANG library alignment issue was raised earlier than
'new year' and actually during WG last call. Since the YANG library
interim (NETCONF WG) in December we have a clearer view on YANG
library. Anyway, I expect that all WG last call comments will be dealt
with - otherwise there is a process error.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread joel jaeggli 


On 1/24/18 8:07 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kent Watsen  writes:
>
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
>> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
>> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
>> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
>> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
>> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
>> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.
> I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
> proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
> *both* document authors?
Once the document is adopted by the working group it's the working
group's document.

The consensus call was made back here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19433.html

To my mind the discussion that we picked up in the new year highlights
the limitations of the existing draft without it being fatally flawed.
To wit (and this is my opinion), this one is stable and should proceed,
clearing the path for drafts with normative dependencies; we should
proceed with an update in a timely fashion.

IETF Last call serves a useful function in that is exposes the problem
discussed here beyond the working group, particularly to those who
depend on schema mount today. I think we understand in making this
judgement call where the working group participants stand today.

>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
>> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
>> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
>> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
>> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
>> that normatively reference the current draft.
>>
>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],
> Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
> expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
> than hand-waving.
>
> I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
> more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.
>
> Lada
>
>> we also agree
>> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
>> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
>> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
>> supporting rfc7895bis.
>>
>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
>> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
>> advancement. 
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Ladislav Lhotka 
Hi,

Kent Watsen  writes:

> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
> Nov 6th.
>
> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are
> address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have
> been made, which needed consideration, notably the relationship with
> NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate representation of inline schema.
> These have been considered respecting their impact on the last call
> consensus and it is the position of the chairs that it is best to
> advance the existing schema-mount document at this time.

I guess I have no chance but strongly object to this. Is it normal to
proceed this way without reaching WG consensus and against the will of
*both* document authors?

>
> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution
> proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable
> to add an applicability statement to the draft that covers its
> operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe that such a
> statement substantively alters the draft nor would it impact drafts
> that normatively reference the current draft.
>
> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1],

Hmm, who resolved this thread? Lou proposed some text and nobody
expressed any agreement with it. In fact, I believe it is nothing more
than hand-waving.

I must say that the work on this draft was very frustrating for me. Even
more than on RFC 8022, and this tells you something.

Lada

> we also agree
> with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should
> allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state),
> thereby enabling the draft's use (though not ideal) on servers
> supporting rfc7895bis.
>
> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
> advancement. 
>
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>
> Thanks,
> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>
>
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Christian Hopps 


Great news.

Thanks,
Chris.

Kent Watsen  writes:

Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion 
of WGLC on Nov 6th.


Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments 
are address unless significant faults are found.  Post LC 
comments have been made, which needed consideration, notably the 
relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and an alternate 
representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the 
position of the chairs that it is best to advance the existing 
schema-mount document at this time.


Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution 
proposed in this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it 
reasonable to add an applicability statement to the draft that 
covers its operation in NMDA implementations. We do not believe 
that such a statement substantively alters the draft nor would 
it impact drafts that normatively reference the current draft.


In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also 
agree with the recently made comment that the schema mount draft 
should allow the use of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference 
/modules-state), thereby enabling the draft's use (though not 
ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis.


The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned 
in this message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before 
final submission and advancement.


[1] 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html


Thanks,
Kent, Lou, and Joel



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-24 Thread Ladislav Lhotka 
Juergen Schoenwaelder  writes:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>> 
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
>> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
>> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
>> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
>> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
>> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
>> this time.
>>
>
> If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
> Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
> again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
> alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
> technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
> g there...)

As a matter of fact, I proposed pretty much the same thing already back in
March 2017:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg18045.html

Lada

>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder 
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:52:50PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> Not currently, as there are two vocal groups with opposing 
> viewpoints.  However, there was strong for advancing it 
> before.  The chairs had to make a decision and, as you can
> imagine, it wasn't easy.  Ultimately, to use a colloquialism,
> a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
>

I am not convinced that publishing two competing schema mount
solutions at more or less the same time makes the Internet work
better.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-23 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder 
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 08:05:54PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
> Nov 6th.
> 
> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
> this time.
>

If we take the formal road, then you may want to read again Robert
Wilton's email posted on November 2nd (Thu, 2 Nov 2017 17:06:34 +)
again. He does talk about YANG library alignment - so YANG library
alignment is not just post LC comments. (I personally prefer to have
technical discussion than formal discussions but if it is necessary to
g there...)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-23 Thread Kent Watsen 

> So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus
> in the WG?

Not currently, as there are two vocal groups with opposing 
viewpoints.  However, there was strong for advancing it 
before.  The chairs had to make a decision and, as you can
imagine, it wasn't easy.  Ultimately, to use a colloquialism,
a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.


> I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is
> divided on this issue.

It will and, undoubtedly, the IETF Last Call will be an 
interesting one.


> This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
> right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.

A WG decision, but seems reasonable.  Are there any small things
that can be done to the current model to facilitate this?


> Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document
> to the IESG at the same time ;-)

This would be fabulous.


Kent



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-23 Thread joel jaeggli 


On 1/23/18 3:24 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the
> WG?
>
> I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on
> this issue.
>
> For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets
> delayed, I strongly object to this decision.
I don't think it does. assuming we had a draft that addresses that
problem. we could poll for working group adoption now.  and proceed with
that one accordingly. what happens there is orthogonal to sending this
one on it's way.
> Assuming this document now moves forward as-is, can we assume that we
> can start to work on the bis document immediately?  What is needed?
>
>   1.  a new individual draft
>   2.  some time until this becomes WG draft
call for adoption can occur once we have a draft.
>   3.  some time before WGLC
>
> Do we have to go through all these steps?
there's roughly three weeks of more or less required process time 
between submission to a working group and the close of WGLC, everything
else is compressible to various degrees if we can satisfy our standards
for consensus, and we don't spend to much time orbiting the same point.
> This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
> right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.
>
> Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document to
> the IESG at the same time ;-)
If you hurry. the first one has taken a bit over 2 years to this point,
I certainly think we can reel that in.
>
> /martin
>
>
> Kent Watsen  wrote:
>> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
>> Nov 6th.
>>
>> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
>> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
>> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
>> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
>> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
>> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
>> this time.
>>
>> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution proposed in 
>> this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable to add an 
>> applicability statement to the draft that covers its operation in NMDA 
>> implementations. We do not believe that such a statement substantively 
>> alters the draft nor would it impact drafts that normatively reference the 
>> current draft.
>>
>> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also agree with 
>> the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should allow the use 
>> of rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state), thereby enabling the 
>> draft's use (though not ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis.
>>
>> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
>> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
>> advancement. 
>>
>> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kent, Lou, and Joel
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>


___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-23 Thread Martin Bjorklund 
Hi,

So do you believe that this decision reflects rough consensus in the
WG?

I hope that the document writeup will show that the WG is divided on
this issue.

For the record, if this means that using Schema Mount *with* NMDA gets
delayed, I strongly object to this decision.

Assuming this document now moves forward as-is, can we assume that we
can start to work on the bis document immediately?  What is needed?

  1.  a new individual draft
  2.  some time until this becomes WG draft
  3.  some time before WGLC

Do we have to go through all these steps?

This new draft would immediately obsolete the current SM document,
right?  And it would mark the current SM YANG nodes as deprecated.

Maybe we can send both the original document and the bis document to
the IESG at the same time ;-)


/martin


Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on 
> Nov 6th.
> 
> Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
> unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
> needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and 
> an alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
> respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
> the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
> this time.
> 
> Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution proposed in 
> this draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable to add an 
> applicability statement to the draft that covers its operation in NMDA 
> implementations. We do not believe that such a statement substantively alters 
> the draft nor would it impact drafts that normatively reference the current 
> draft.
> 
> In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also agree with 
> the recently made comment that the schema mount draft should allow the use of 
> rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state), thereby enabling the draft's 
> use (though not ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis.
> 
> The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this 
> message to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
> advancement. 
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent, Lou, and Joel
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

[netmod] moving forward with schema mount

2018-01-22 Thread Kent Watsen 

Thank you all for the important discussion since the completion of WGLC on Nov 
6th.

Per normal process, drafts typically progress once LC comments are address 
unless significant faults are found.  Post LC comments have been made, which 
needed consideration, notably the relationship with NMDA and rfc7895bis and an 
alternate representation of inline schema.  These have been considered 
respecting their impact on the last call consensus and it is the position of 
the chairs that it is best to advance the existing schema-mount document at 
this time.

Given that there are significant concerns for how the solution proposed in this 
draft operates with NMDA, we do think it reasonable to add an applicability 
statement to the draft that covers its operation in NMDA implementations. We do 
not believe that such a statement substantively alters the draft nor would it 
impact drafts that normatively reference the current draft.

In addition to resolving the remaining open thread [1], we also agree with the 
recently made comment that the schema mount draft should allow the use of 
rfc7895bis (i.e., not reference /modules-state), thereby enabling the draft's 
use (though not ideal) on servers supporting rfc7895bis.

The chairs will propose specific text for the updates mentioned in this message 
to be reviewed by the WG for correctness before final submission and 
advancement. 

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg20049.html

Thanks,
Kent, Lou, and Joel



___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod