One of the things that came up in a number of discussions I had in
Hawaii and afterwards was around the coordination and encouragement topics. A
number of people commented both during these discussions (and I think someone
did during one of the Netmod sessions) that the “MIB Doctor” model we are using
is not going to scale out to the numbers of Yang models that are in need of
advice or review, nor will be scale in terms of progressing models through the
IETF’s RFC process. The fact is that we simply do not have enough Yang Doctors
to cover all of the models in question, despite our best efforts. It is for
this reason that I strongly encourage other venues of review and advice such as
a continued “advice” or “Yangathon” session at each IETF meeting going forward,
as well as encouraging a loosening of the interim WG meeting rules to encourage
more meetings, as well as perhaps less formalized ones. I also encourage the
IETF to start pairing up with other organizations such as OpenDaylight,
Openstack and OP-NFV and join their Yangathons there.
—Tom
On Nov 28, 2014:8:12 AM, at 8:12 AM, Benoit Claise
<bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Jari,
Let me open the discussion.
What is important at this point in time is the coordination of those YANG
models.
All of them come at the same time, and this required some urgent attention.
Focusing on the routing YANG models with "Rtg-yang-coord(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<Rtg-yang-coord(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord> is a step in the right
direction. Indeed the community needs to agree on how to model IGPs, BGP, the
topology, etc...
However, the coordination should also occur with the data models developed in
other IETF WGs. And the IETF might need to reach out to different
SDOs/consortia.
As the operators told me: we can't afford to develop those data models
independently from each others.
Regards, Benoit
Thanks for writing this article, Benoit!
The wave of new data models is obviously interesting and exciting. But I
wanted to open a discussion with you all on what we should do with regards
to serving this need better. Is there something that we could do better at
the IETF to be able deal with this new work?
Jari