Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry

Hi Dan,

> Hi,
>
> Success comes sometimes together with its own risks. In the case of 
> YANG, the risk is that six months or one year from now people who 
> enthusiastically engaged with developing YANG module will have at hand 
> bad modules that do not meet their expectations of functionality, 
> quality, interoperability. The pushback can then follow at the same 
> intensity as the current embracing.
This is exactly my concern, and why we have a limited amount of time to 
organize ourselves.
> To avoid this situation we need to provide answers to the problem of 
> non-scalability of the 'Doctors' team model which is IMO real. The 
> answer cannot be just 'let us focus on what we do in the standards 
> track in the IETF' because much of the development of YANG modules 
> happens out of the IETF and this is how we want it to be. We need to 
> encourage the open source and SDOs that engage on the YANG path to 
> develop their own Yangathon events and maybe in time their own YANG 
> doctors teams. We need however to make clear that this is the model we 
> recommend (rather than developing YANG modules and coming to the YANG 
> doctors to review) and offer help in organizing these first activities 
> and teams at their homes.
+1.

Regards, Benoit
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> *From:*ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf Of *Ersue, 
> Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 7:30 PM
> *To:* ext Benoit Claise; Thomas D. Nadeau
> *Cc:* IETF-Discussion list
> *Subject:* RE: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
>
> Hi Benoit, All,
>
> to be able to reduce the necessary amount reviews and publications, I 
> assume we need to define some categories:
> - YANG models might be interesting to have but they don't need to be 
> standardized in many cases. So, the category for Standard track RFC 
> has to be defined with a clear criteria.
> - Others may be Informational or Experimental. However for these we 
> need to see the relevance to IETF work and necessity for publication.
> The other categorization could be concerning the dispatching of YANG 
> models within IETF:
> - There are particularly important YANG models related to a specific 
> WG. They should be developed in that WG.
> - There might be others which are still important to publish but don't 
> have any home. I would discuss them in an OPSAWG meeting and decide 
> whether it should be published in OPSAWG or NETMOD WG
> .
>
> The other category I see is related to YANG models which should be 
> matched to another SDO. If we think a model is e.g. related to IEEE or 
> MEF, they should be done there and not at IETF.
> There might be also other YANG models which are interesting but not 
> related to IETF. One particular category is concerning models, which 
> were originally Enterprise models but people would like to have an 
> IETF publication.
> In general, over time we might need to be strict to stick to the 
> categories and the matched process per category.
> That said, I would like to suggest to use the resources of the YANG 
> doctor team for models, which are essential for the IETF at the first 
> place, especially those seen under the category Standard track RFC.
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>
> *From:*ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf Of *ext Benoit 
> Claise
> *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 10:32 AM
> *To:* Thomas D. Nadeau
> *Cc:* IETF-Discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> In light of the numerous YANG models these days, there is the YANG 
> doctors scaling issue. You're right, even if the number of YANG 
> doctors recently increased, we need other venues to provide advice to 
> YANG model designers. This should solve the issue of designing 
> properly the YANG models.
> On the other hand, there is a bigger issue, IMO: the proper 
> coordination of those YANG models. This is not the YANG doctors 
> responsibility. This can't be: see the YANG doctors scalability 
> issue.  So who's responsibility is this? Simply asserting "it's the 
> community responsibility" is the easy answer, but I'm afraid it will 
> not work.
> Regards, Benoit
>
>     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 <mailto: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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_rtg-2Dyang-2Dcoord&d=AAMFAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=EldXn4rzRf97Z5Y7A2KouM2hYYBbL5m9IMpucoilFZE&s=14IGX58lMwSyD8bOPQb_MqlsYeQ3u_s0T7YwNmjqqU0&e=>
>         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
>
>