Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry

        You are right that "community responsibility" is a bit nebulous. What 
we need to do is setup a community place or places where people can meet up 
online or in person (at relatively frequent intervals) to work on modeling. The 
open source communities do this via virtual and real "hackathons" -- which are 
what we've setup just as part of official IETF meetings. I set one up at the 
previous ODL dev meetup, and will do so going forward as well as part of a few 
well attended conferences. Other ideas (and help!) for these is appreciated. 

        --Tom

        
> On Dec 8, 2014:4:32 AM, at 4:32 AM, Benoit Claise 
> <bclaise(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> 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