Re: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

[Benoit Claise]

On 6/10/2017 5:42 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:


Yes, let's rewrite 6.23 completely to state more helpfully what's in 
the guidelines draft.


I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently.

Agreed.

Regards, B.


Kent. // shepherd


On Jun 9, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Andy Bierman > wrote:



Hi,

I am trying to complete rfc6087bis.
It has been held up waiting for this draft.
It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change.
Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to 
this new draft?



Andy


On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise > wrote:


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
,
impacts Yang models. The 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
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] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

[Kent Watsen]

Yes, let's rewrite 6.23 completely to state more helpfully what's in the 
guidelines draft.

I don't expect the guidelines doc is going to progress independently.

Kent. // shepherd


On Jun 9, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Andy Bierman 
> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to complete rfc6087bis.
It has been held up waiting for this draft.
It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change.
Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to this new 
draft?


Andy


On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise 
> wrote:
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,
 impacts Yang models. The 
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
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] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

[Andy Bierman]

Hi,

I am trying to complete rfc6087bis.
It has been held up waiting for this draft.
It is not clear to me how sec. 6.23 (Operational Data) needs to change.
Should the whole section be replaced by an informative reference to this
new draft?


Andy


On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Benoit Claise  wrote:

> 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
> ,
> impacts Yang models. The 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
> 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] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

[Lou Berger]

Benoit,

Thanks for this!

WG,

Now would be a good time to take a look at, and comment on,
draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines
 also
consider how this document impacts draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis
(particularly section 5.23).  Optimally we could have a proposed
revision to draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis discussed on the list prior to
Prague, but I know I'm being optimistic.

Lou and Kent


On 6/9/2017 9:56 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> 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
> ,
> impacts Yang models. The 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
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

[netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

[Benoit Claise]

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 
, 
impacts Yang models. The 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
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod