Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-17 Thread Susan Hares 
John: 

 

I’m sorry John if this statement seemed harsh.  It was not my intent.  I 
apologize to you and all the co-authors.  I’m not sleeping as much as I should 
due to the time-zone shift from the US to Europe.  My “Ok” in the next email 
was me trying to take my foot out of my mouth while sleepy.  Again – I’m sorry 
if I offend.  

 

The concept and structure of the capabilities modules is strong, but it is not 
obvious to the newcomer.   In a similar way, the structure of a routing 
protocol such as an SPF is strong, but not obvious.  Justifiably, these 
structures may be close to perfect to those who have worked to attain this 
work.  The thought of “being perfect in your eyes” – was simply to acknowledge 
you and your co-authors have reason to be proud of you structure. However, we 
are in a catch-22.   These yang models must be adopted by newcomers who will 
not implement something that is does not seem reasonably easy to work.  

 

My alternative solution was to suggest we could refactor the yang modules into 
basic + augments.  There is a continuum – most efficient architecture --- to 
most obvious.  I was wondering if we could agree on the first principles of 
trying to refactor for readability.  If we could try to move toward the middle 
of the continuum then perhaps we could can the adoption.  In a second 
suggestion – I want to suggest we have the following types of things:  nsf 
client information, capability, monitoring, nsf device information.  We could 
group modules into a set in the Yang catalog.   

 

These are higher-level principles to discuss before we start reworking pieces.  
 I need your help to consider if we can consider these alternative in order to 
increase adoption of these good principles. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org; Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team?

 

Wow.

 

I have NEVER said that "my" (and it is NOT just mine!) model is architecturally 
perfect. I am offended by that statement. Am I the ONLY author on this draft?

 

Rather than denigrate the efforts of the team that is building the model, it 
would be much more helpful to provide specifics. For example, what specifically 
is "too hard to understand"? How are we supposed to fix something given only 
vague comments like this?

 

I also object to your statement "Feedback from product groups are that your 
model are difficult to understand." I have worked with people inside and 
**outside** of Huawei on understanding and implementing the model. None have 
said that it is "too difficult to understand".

 

I have no idea what "something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users" actually means. Saying that the YANG is "readable" is a matter of 
opinion. I note that, for example, there is no ability of the current YANG 
models to provide reflection or introspection. That impacts usability.

 

Providing insults and no alternative suggestions is not helpful.

 

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Susan Hares  wrote:

John: 

 

Let me propose something different.  There are 2 priorities: 

 

1)  Priority 1 – something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users 

2)  Priority 2 – something that is architecturally clean

 

I understand you feel your base model is architecturally perfect.  Feedback 
from product groups are that your model are difficult to understand.   The 
models from the teams that have worked on the hackathon have been understood 
and worked on by the teams. 

 

We should work toward both. An attitude that says “my model’s perfect” does not 
align with the yang model’s readably .

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team?

 

I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.

 

That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:

 

   1) There should be one, and only one, information model.

a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those contributions 
MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a new one

   2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per se, but 
rather, requirements for models. 

   3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model work.

   a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or define 
policies

 

I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that the 
other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to

Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-17 Thread Susan Hares 
John
Ok.  Old/my/ new/group model/
There is a strategy that uses augmentation of simple model to create current 
level of comexity.  People buy into the model  step at a time.  The feedback on 
complexity comes from many sources.  
In the end it may be what some people need - but yang readability is to 
encourage deployment.  Please do not see this as rejection of modeling  
discussion of how to factor it into pieces that will be deployed. 
I wish you were here for ana in person discussion.
Cheerily. Sue

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
 Original message From: John Strassner  
Date: 7/17/17  7:29 PM  (GMT+01:00) To: Susan Hares , John 
Strassner  Cc: Linda Dunbar , 
i2nsf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency 
of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team? 
Wow.
I have NEVER said that "my" (and it is NOT just mine!) model is architecturally 
perfect. I am offended by that statement. Am I the ONLY author on this draft?
Rather than denigrate the efforts of the team that is building the model, it 
would be much more helpful to provide specifics. For example, what specifically 
is "too hard to understand"? How are we supposed to fix something given only 
vague comments like this?
I also object to your statement "Feedback from product groups are that your 
model are difficult to understand." I have worked with people inside and 
**outside** of Huawei on understanding and implementing the model. None have 
said that it is "too difficult to understand".
I have no idea what "something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users" actually means. Saying that the YANG is "readable" is a matter of 
opinion. I note that, for example, there is no ability of the current YANG 
models to provide reflection or introspection. That impacts usability.
Providing insults and no alternative suggestions is not helpful.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Susan Hares  wrote:
John:  Let me propose something different.  There are 2 priorities:  1)  
Priority 1 – something that fits the market, and provides easy reading by users 
2)  Priority 2 – something that is architecturally clean I understand you 
feel your base model is architecturally perfect.  Feedback from product groups 
are that your model are difficult to understand.   The models from the teams 
that have worked on the hackathon have been understood and worked on by the 
teams.  We should work toward both. An attitude that says “my model’s perfect” 
does not align with the yang model’s readably . Just my 2 cents.  Sue Hares  
From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team? I cannot attend Prague due to 
family health issues. That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major 
problems:    1) There should be one, and only one, information model.        a) 
It is great to have multiple contributions, but those contributions MUST be 
written to enhance the existing model, not propose a new one   2) In general, 
some of the info models are not really **models** per se, but rather, 
requirements for models.    3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back 
to the info model work.       a) This is especially true for drafts that are 
trying to use or define policies I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our 
info model. This means that the other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured 
to add to that draft. I propose that we wait on further data model draft 
definition until some people (I will help) on the design team can formulate 
guidelines and perhaps examples to properly derive data models from our info 
model. regards,John On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
 wrote:Thanks to many people contributions. We now 
have many drafts on the information model and data model for I2NSF: Information 
model:draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01
 Data 
Model:draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01
  But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed to 
improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both 
Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces. So we are going to form a 
design team to work on it.  If you are interested in participate, please click 
on this doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca For people not in 
Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call

Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-17 Thread John Strassner 
Wow.

I have NEVER said that "my" (and it is NOT just mine!) model is
architecturally perfect. I am offended by that statement. Am I the ONLY
author on this draft?

Rather than denigrate the efforts of the team that is building the model,
it would be much more helpful to provide specifics. For example, what
specifically is "too hard to understand"? How are we supposed to fix
something given only vague comments like this?

I also object to your statement "Feedback from product groups are that your
model are difficult to understand." I have worked with people inside and
**outside** of Huawei on understanding and implementing the model. None
have said that it is "too difficult to understand".

I have no idea what "something that fits the market, and provides easy
reading by users" actually means. Saying that the YANG is "readable" is a
matter of opinion. I note that, for example, there is no ability of the
current YANG models to provide reflection or introspection. That impacts
usability.

Providing insults and no alternative suggestions is not helpful.

On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Susan Hares  wrote:

> John:
>
>
>
> Let me propose something different.  There are 2 priorities:
>
>
>
> 1)  Priority 1 – something that fits the market, and provides easy
> reading by users
>
> 2)  Priority 2 – something that is architecturally clean
>
>
>
> I understand you feel your base model is architecturally perfect.
> Feedback from product groups are that your model are difficult to
> understand.   The models from the teams that have worked on the hackathon
> have been understood and worked on by the teams.
>
>
>
> We should work toward both. An attitude that says “my model’s perfect”
> does not align with the yang model’s readably .
>
>
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
>
>
> Sue Hares
>
>
>
> *From:* I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *John
> Strassner
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:36 PM
> *To:* Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
> *Cc:* i2nsf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF
> Information and data model: maybe a design team?
>
>
>
> I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.
>
>
>
> That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:
>
>
>
>1) There should be one, and only one, information model.
>
> a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those
> contributions MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a
> new one
>
>2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per
> se, but rather, requirements for models.
>
>3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model
> work.
>
>a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or
> define policies
>
>
>
> I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that
> the other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to that draft.
>
>
>
> I propose that we wait on further data model draft definition until some
> people (I will help) on the design team can formulate guidelines and
> perhaps examples to properly derive data models from our info model.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks to many people contributions. We now have many drafts on the
> information model and data model for I2NSF:
>
>
>
> Information model:
>
> draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02
>
> draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04
>
> draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02
>
> draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03
>
> draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01
>
>
>
> Data Model:
>
> draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03
>
> draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02
>
> draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02
>
> draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01
>
>
>
>
>
> But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed
> to improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both
> Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces.
>
> So we are going to form a design team to work on it.
>
>
>
> If you are interested in participate, please click on this doodle poll:
> https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca
>
>
>
> For people not in Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call in.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the contribution.
>
>
>
> Linda & Adrian
>
>
>
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> regards,
>
> John
>



-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-17 Thread Susan Hares 
John: 

 

Let me propose something different.  There are 2 priorities: 

 

1)  Priority 1 – something that fits the market, and provides easy reading 
by users 

2)  Priority 2 – something that is architecturally clean

 

I understand you feel your base model is architecturally perfect.  Feedback 
from product groups are that your model are difficult to understand.   The 
models from the teams that have worked on the hackathon have been understood 
and worked on by the teams. 

 

We should work toward both. An attitude that says “my model’s perfect” does not 
align with the yang model’s readably .

 

Just my 2 cents. 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: I2nsf [mailto:i2nsf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Strassner
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Linda Dunbar; John Strassner
Cc: i2nsf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF 
Information and data model: maybe a design team?

 

I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.

 

That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:

 

   1) There should be one, and only one, information model.

a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those contributions 
MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a new one

   2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per se, but 
rather, requirements for models. 

   3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model work.

   a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or define 
policies

 

I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that the 
other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to that draft.

 

I propose that we wait on further data model draft definition until some people 
(I will help) on the design team can formulate guidelines and perhaps examples 
to properly derive data models from our info model.

 

regards,

John

 

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar  wrote:

Thanks to many people contributions. We now have many drafts on the information 
model and data model for I2NSF:

 

Information model:

draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02

draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04

draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02

draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03

draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01

 

Data Model:

draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03

draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02

draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02

draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01

 

 

But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed to 
improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both 
Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces. 

So we are going to form a design team to work on it. 

 

If you are interested in participate, please click on this doodle poll: 
https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca

 

For people not in Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call in. 

 

Thank you very much for the contribution. 

 

Linda & Adrian

 


___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf




-- 

regards,

John

___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-16 Thread Diego R. Lopez 
Hi,

I agree with John, and would propose that we keep a single draft for the info 
model (by adding to draft-xibassnez) and another one for the data model, that 
could refer to several YANG model descriptions, and make them available on the 
YANG catalog (https://yangcatalog.org)

If this sounds too heavy, I’d propose to define a core (information and data) 
model, focus on it, and let other models extend it in the future.

Be goode,


On 16 Jul 2017, at 19:36 , John Strassner 
mailto:straz...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.

That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:

   1) There should be one, and only one, information model.
a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those contributions 
MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a new one
   2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per se, but 
rather, requirements for models.
   3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model work.
   a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or define 
policies

I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that the 
other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to that draft.

I propose that we wait on further data model draft definition until some people 
(I will help) on the design team can formulate guidelines and perhaps examples 
to properly derive data models from our info model.

regards,
John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
mailto:linda.dun...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Thanks to many people contributions. We now have many drafts on the information 
model and data model for I2NSF:

Information model:
draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02
draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04
draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02
draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03
draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01

Data Model:
draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03
draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02
draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02
draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01


But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed to 
improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both 
Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces.
So we are going to form a design team to work on it.

If you are interested in participate, please click on this doodle poll: 
https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca

For people not in Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call in.

Thank you very much for the contribution.

Linda & Adrian


___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf




--
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

--
"Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"

Dr Diego R. Lopez
Telefonica I+D
http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/

e-mail: diego.r.lo...@telefonica.com
Tel:+34 913 129 041
Mobile: +34 682 051 091
--




Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede 
contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la 
persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda 
notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin 
autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha 
recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente 
por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential 
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. 
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not 
read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this 
communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode 
conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa 
ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica 
notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização 
pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem 
por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e 
proceda a sua destruição
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf

Re: [I2nsf] need some work to improve the consistency of I2NSF Information and data model: maybe a design team?

2017-07-16 Thread John Strassner 
I cannot attend Prague due to family health issues.

That being said, I agree with Linda. I see three major problems:

   1) There should be one, and only one, information model.
a) It is great to have multiple contributions, but those
contributions MUST be written to enhance the existing model, not propose a
new one
   2) In general, some of the info models are not really **models** per se,
but rather, requirements for models.
   3) In general, I cannot trace data model work back to the info model
work.
   a) This is especially true for drafts that are trying to use or
define policies

I propose that draft-xibassnez is used for our info model. This means that
the other info model drafts SHOULD be restructured to add to that draft.

I propose that we wait on further data model draft definition until some
people (I will help) on the design team can formulate guidelines and
perhaps examples to properly derive data models from our info model.

regards,
John

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Linda Dunbar 
wrote:

> Thanks to many people contributions. We now have many drafts on the
> information model and data model for I2NSF:
>
>
>
> Information model:
>
> draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02
>
> draft-zhang-i2nsf-info-model-monitoring-04
>
> draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-im-02
>
> draft-kumar-i2nsf-client-facing-interface-im-03
>
> draft-xia-i2nsf-security-policy-object-01
>
>
>
> Data Model:
>
> draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-03
>
> draft-jeong-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-02
>
> draft-kim-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-data-model-02
>
> draft-hyun-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-01
>
>
>
>
>
> But the problem is that they are not all consistent.  Extra work is needed
> to improve the consistency for I2NSF information and data models for both
> Client/Consumer facing and NSF facing interfaces.
>
> So we are going to form a design team to work on it.
>
>
>
> If you are interested in participate, please click on this doodle poll:
> https://doodle.com/poll/4ryrcw3993fbf7ca
>
>
>
> For people not in Prague, we can set up a Webex for you to call in.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for the contribution.
>
>
>
> Linda & Adrian
>
>
>
> ___
> I2nsf mailing list
> I2nsf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
>
>


-- 
regards,
John
___
I2nsf mailing list
I2nsf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf