Subject: YANG data models proactive review by the YANG doctors: are you models mature?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 12:31:35 +0200

Dear WG chairs,

We know that we have one or two issues 
<https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/03/yang-data-models-in-the-industry-current-state-of-affairs/> 
to resolve before finalizing many YANG data models specifications.
Like for the MIB doctors review, the YANG doctors 
<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html> review should 
normally be done at IETF LC.
Before opening the gate to publish all these much-needed models, the 
YANG doctors <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/yang-doctors.html> 
will take a proactive action to review the mature YANG data models, even 
before the IETF LC.

Based on the discussion with the respective ADs, we have already 
assigned a couple of those mature models 
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-doctors-review-history>. 
We would like to understand if some other YANG data models are mature 
enough to deserve a YANG doctor review now? The only condition is that 
the model belongs to a WG document (otherwise the reviews won't scale 
<http://claise.be/IETFYANGPageCompilation.png>).
Please let Dan Romascanu, Mehmet Ersue (our YANG doctors secretaries) 
and me know

If interested, the detailed procedure 
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-doctors-review> is 
here.

Also, we started to collect and document the YANG modeling FAQs 
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-doctors>. Feel free 
to share your questions with us.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 12:04:42 +0200

Benoit,
The MPLS wg have had a model for MIBs, and I guess that we intend
something similar for YANG models. The flow could be:

- individual draft published
- after discussion the authors tell the chairs that the document
   is read to be adopted by the working group
- at least one of the chairs review, and after potential updates
   the document is reviewed by the mpls-rt (mpls review team)
- the purpose of the mpls-rt review is not to sort out all details,
   but give the wg chairs if the document is a good candidate to become
   a wg document (mpls-rt reviewers sort their technical comments into
   two groups
     a. need to be addressed before the adoption poll
     b. things that can e discussed in the wg process
- at this point in time, often as part of the mpls-rt review, we asked
   someone with good understand of MIB modules (often but but not
   necessarily a MIB doctor) to review the document, but handle the
   outcome of the review as any other mpls-rt review comments
- working group adoption poll is done; comments that are non-blocking
   will be addressed in the -01 version of the wg document
- eventually the authors/wg will say that the document is ready for wglc
- chairs review and if we agree the the wglc is started
- at this point in time we ask for a MIB doctor review
- after sorting out all comments we request publication.

I think we'll use the same "process" for YANG models. But I fully
support if we can achieve a good coordination early in the process.

/Loa

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:55:50 +0200

Loa,

Your process is a good process for MIB module because SMI is relatively 
well known.
This is also the targeted process for YANG modules.
However, YANG modules are being worked on in many places while the YANG 
expertise ramps up. Let's keep in mind that YANG 1.1 (rfc6020bis) just 
passed IESG.

So we try to be proactive, early in the process, and document as much as 
we can.
A message such as "Well, your YANG module is badly designed. Go back to 
the drawing board and start from scratch" is never fun to send (and 
receive) during IETF last call.

In the end, this initial email is about an extra free service. Feel free 
to use if you see some benefits.

Regards, Benoit
> .