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://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