Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
2014-12-08 03:32:59
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://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
|
|