Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Publishing requirements draft

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:43:01 +0100

Dear WG Chairs,

The design team is asking for clarification on what the long term plan 
is for the YANG versioning requirements draft.

We understand that the intention is for it to become a WG document. We 
would like to know whether the plan is for this to just be a temporary 
WG document to receive WG feedback, help ensure that we are addressing 
the correct problem, and to evaluate solutions; or whether the intention 
is to take this draft all the way to Informational RFC status?

The current status of the document is that the design team has reached 
consensus on the requirements section, but that we would need to spend 
more time to polish the problem definition if the plan is to take this 
to RFC.  However, if the intention is that this document remains just a 
WG document, then we think that we can probably declare that the problem 
statement section as good enough, and the collective effort of the DT 
can start to be focused on discussing potential solutions.

Hence, please can you advise on the planned end goal for this document.  
[Almost] current draft attached for reference.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:19:27 -0400

Rob/Team,

     From my perspective the requirements need to be documented and 
agreed to by the team and the WG.  From a long term publication 
perspective, I'm open to any form that the team thinks make sense.  I 
suspect that a standalone document or a section in the solutions 
document will make the most sense, but if the team has a different 
preference - they should state it.

Is this sufficient directions?

co-chairs - do you have anything you'd like to add (or disagree with)?

Thanks,

Lou

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 21:15:04 +0000

Some working groups like to publish a standalone requirements doc
that can then be referenced several times by other docs that WG 
is working on (I2RS comes to mind).  Other times, the requirements
doc is more ephemeral in nature and, while good to submit to 
datatracker for visibility and consensus building, they don't 
get published themselves (opstate-reqs comes to mind).

That said, note that RFC 8342 references opstate-reqs, even though
that I-D was never published and, in fact, expired a couple years 
ago.

In this case, it seems that the sole consumer of the requirements
doc would be the solution doc and, in this sense, seems more like
the latter than the former.  So, my sense is that we would not
publish the requirements draft, and yet still the solution draft 
might reference the it anyways, even in its unpublished form.

But, like Lou, I'm happy to go along with whatever the team thinks
is best.  Do you all have a preference?

Kent

===== original message =====

Rob/Team,

Thanks,

Lou

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:25:00 +0100

> is best.  Do you all have a preference?
Probably best that we defer and discuss this in the DT meeting next 
Thursday.

My thinking is:
  - we should continue to try and improve the requirements doc over the 
next week, before we publish it.
  - we'll present the doc in NETMOD @ 102, mostly focused on the 
requirements.
  - if we get strong feedback from the WG that they disagree with the 
requirements then we will spend further time understanding this feedback.
  - if the feedback om the requirements from the WG is relatively minor, 
then we'll keep the requirements doc ticking over (incorporating 
comments, etc), but otherwise focus discussions on possible solutions.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:37:44 +0200

Agree, with what you wrote, but also I would consider including a good 
bit of text from this draft into the implementation draft too.

regards Balazs

On 6/22/2018 4:25 PM, Robert Wilton wrote:
>  - if the feedback om the requirements from the WG is relatively 
> minor, then we'll keep the requirements doc ticking over 
> (incorporating comments, etc), but otherwise focus discussions on 
> possible solutions.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
Senior Specialist
Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email: [email-masked]