Subject: [Netmod-ver-dt] Status update

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:58:32 +0100

My proposed slides for Tuesday's NETMOD session.  Comments are welcome.

I've scheduled a meeting in "Barre Oblique" on Thursday 19th, from 10 am 
to 11:30 am.   I will extend this to 12 pm if possible.

I think that we should meet today at the usual time, if enough folks are 
free:

- You can give me any verbal comments on the slides that you wish to.
- We can discuss some of the points that Balazs has raised regarding on 
the DT alias over the last week.
- We can discuss how to progress with a solution draft (i.e. Juergen's 
coments).

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:01:36 +0100

On 12/07/2018 11:58, Robert Wilton wrote:
> I've scheduled a meeting in "Barre Oblique" on Thursday 19th, from 10 
> am to 11:30 am.   I will extend this to 12 pm if possible.
>
I should have added that I don't know whether a meeting bridge will be 
available or not.  I might be able to do it through my laptop, although 
the audio might be useless.  But I'm definitely not going to do it via 
my phone at £1.50/minute!  I will try and find out in advance of the 
meeting.

Rob

> I think that we should meet today at the usual time, if enough folks 
> are free:
>
> - We can discuss some of the points that Balazs has raised regarding 
> on the DT alias over the last week.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:56:54 +0200

Oh, I did not expect this meeting to happen today.

- Concerning the slides, I have no comments.
- Concerning Balazs points, I believe they are mostly variants of
  the issue we have listed with deprecated
- Concerning solution, I can see the option to factor out the version
  constraints so that they are not provided inline in the YANG module
  but instead managed externally (e.g., by some bundle / packaging
  mechanism). This allows to adapt versioning constraints over time
  without having to touch the modules (foo just imports bar and the
  version conditions are managed separately). I assume, however, that
  this will look to many people like a much more complex solution
  because this touches on bundles or packages and I do not have the
  energy to try to convince people that in the longer term... since
  the focus is on short-term actions; so we may do version contraints
  inline and then factor them out in 5-10 years.
- Concerning path forward, I have a clear opinion that it is time to
  roll yang-data, versioning, alignment with RFC 8342 and refactoring
  of NETCONF and encoding specifics into YANG 1.2. (but this is beyond
  the scope of this design team to make recommendations).

/js

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:
> I've scheduled a meeting in "Barre Oblique" on Thursday 19th, from 10 am to
> 11:30 am.   I will extend this to 12 pm if possible.
> 
> - We can discuss some of the points that Balazs has raised regarding on the
> DT alias over the last week.

> _______________________________________________
> Netmod-ver-dt mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod-ver-dt

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:33:22 +0100

Updated slides based on yesterday's meeting:

  - I've not added examples to the Problem Statement, but will cite them 
when covering the slide (e.g. as per the notes).
  - Added a slide regarding WG adoption of requirements (slide 11)
  - Added a space slide 12/13 so that clacla solution can be discussed 
(time + chair agreement permitting)
-  Refined the last two slides regarding the issue and path forward.  
These two probably worth reviewing again to check everyone is happy with 
them.

We have 65 mins allocated:

I will ask the chairs to help me keep time, with the proposed schedule:
   5 mins - intro & status update
   10 mins - problem statement
   25 mins - requirements text
   5 mins  - WG requirements adoption, next steps.
   10 mins  - clacla update (time permitting, at most)
   10 mins - potential issue, final discussion.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 12:48:14 +0100

Hi Juergen,

Please see inline ...

>    the issue we have listed with deprecated
Yes, I think that they are all wrapped up, and will be easier to unpick 
when discussing a specific solution.

>    inline and then factor them out in 5-10 years.
For modules that are currently managed via today's IETF process I can 
see the desire to move the dependencies out.

But if the modules are being managed in git, or by a single organization 
where updating the modules themselves is relatively straight forward, 
then updating them in place seems simpler to me.

However, we may want to consider whether a server is allowed to 
refine/deviate an import version statement (e.g. if it is too restrictive).

>    the scope of this design team to make recommendations).
OK, well perhaps someone should separately make this suggestion at 
NETMOD.  There is time on Friday morning, although how many people will 
be there to listen to it is another question ...

Perhaps updating the core docs could be done in parallel to the YANG 
versioning work.  Depending on the relative speed of the work could 
determine whether the YANG versioning work (or parts of it at least) 
folds into YANG 1.2, or is done as a separate draft?

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:42:11 +0200

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:48:14PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:

> OK, well perhaps someone should separately make this suggestion at NETMOD. 
> There is time on Friday morning, although how many people will be there to
> listen to it is another question ...
> 
> determine whether the YANG versioning work (or parts of it at least) folds
> into YANG 1.2, or is done as a separate draft?

It is hopless to try to change my position. And I think parallel work
is not helping much with limited human resources. And I have technical
concers about what can be done with extension statements and what not.

/js

---

From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:43:08 +0000

Rob, looks good.

Nits/suggestions:

  *   Slide 2, get rid of the Perhaps in “Perhaps need discussion on next steps”?
  *   Slide 3, not everyone may be familiar with the clacla draft in question, so spell out the full draft name. Similarly on slides 12/13.
  *   Slide 4, last bullet should be “Both of which have high impact”?

Regards,
Reshad.

From: Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]> on behalf of Robert Wilton <rwilton=[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:33 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Status update

 - I've not added examples to the Problem Statement, but will cite them when covering the slide (e.g. as per the notes).
 - Added a slide regarding WG adoption of requirements (slide 11)
 - Added a space slide 12/13 so that clacla solution can be discussed (time + chair agreement permitting)
-  Refined the last two slides regarding the issue and path forward.  These two probably worth reviewing again to check everyone is happy with them.

Thanks,
Rob

I've scheduled a meeting in "Barre Oblique" on Thursday 19th, from 10 am to 11:30 am.   I will extend this to 12 pm if possible.

I think that we should meet today at the usual time, if enough folks are free:

- You can give me any verbal comments on the slides that you wish to.
- We can discuss some of the points that Balazs has raised regarding on the DT alias over the last week.
- We can discuss how to progress with a solution draft (i.e. Juergen's coments).

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 15:23:02 +0100

On 13/07/2018 14:42, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> OK, well perhaps someone should separately make this suggestion at NETMOD..
OK, but my main concern here is that the work grinds to a halt while the 
WG spends the next 6 months debating how to do the work.  That is what I 
am particularly keen to avoid.

Even if the WG indicates that it wants to update the core drafts, would 
we have enough folks signed up to do this work?  What if few of the 
original authors wanted to be involved in updating the documents?

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 16:52:56 +0100

Thanks.  Markups made.

Thanks,
Rob

On 13/07/2018 14:43, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
>   * Slide 3, not everyone may be familiar with the clacla draft in
>     question, so spell out the full draft name. Similarly on slides 12/13.
> *From: *Netmod-ver-dt <[email-masked]> on behalf of 
> Robert Wilton <rwilton=[email-masked]>
> *Date: *Friday, July 13, 2018 at 7:33 AM
> *To: *"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Netmod-ver-dt] Status update
>
>  - I've not added examples to the Problem Statement, but will cite 
> them when covering the slide (e.g. as per the notes).
> These two probably worth reviewing again to check everyone is happy 
> with them.
>
>     I've scheduled a meeting in "Barre Oblique" on Thursday 19th, from
>     10 am to 11:30 am.   I will extend this to 12 pm if possible.
>
>     - We can discuss some of the points that Balazs has raised
>     regarding on the DT alias over the last week.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:12:17 +0200

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 03:23:02PM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:

> OK, but my main concern here is that the work grinds to a halt while the WG
> spends the next 6 months debating how to do the work.  That is what I am
> particularly keen to avoid.

Sure. But that is primarily in the hand of the chairs.

> Even if the WG indicates that it wants to update the core drafts, would we
> have enough folks signed up to do this work?  What if few of the original
> authors wanted to be involved in updating the documents?

People are interested in getting a problem solved or they are not.

/js