Subject: [netmod] Alia Atlas' Yes on charter-ietf-netmod-08-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 22:46:04 -0700

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-netmod-08-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I do think that it would be helpful for this charter to discuss some of
the
needed WG interactions.  In particular, where encodings of YANG are
defined elsewhere (i.e. draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-04), there should be
coordination of the impact of changes to the YANG language.  

Another question is where do you see the discussion of device profiles
or sets of YANG modules needed to meet a particular purpose going? To
me, this doesn't read as in scope for this charter and yet I don't think
that
we've thought through the right place for them.  I'm ok with continued
discussion for routing-related ones in RTGWG - but not all device
profiles
(i.e. a profile of modules needed for a firewall) belong anywhere near
Routing.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:00:08 +0200

Hi Alia,

Now that you are back from vacation...
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/
We could debate whether draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor should have been in 
core or netmod.
I propose to treat this doc. as the exception, and to keep the guideline 
that mappings should be done in NETMOD.

> (i.e. a profile of modules needed for a firewall) belong anywhere near
Good point for the profiles.
For the top of the rack switch profile, RTGWG is the best place.
I propose to add a sentence that will leave the door open for NETMOD
The NETMOD WG may include work on YANG modules device profiles that do 
not otherwise fall under the charter of any other IETF working group.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:19:07 -0400

Hi Benoit,

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We could debate whether draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor should have been in core
> or netmod.

Sure - but having an indication of other WGs to coordinate with would be
useful.

> The NETMOD WG may include work on YANG modules device profiles that do not
> otherwise fall under the charter of any other IETF working group.
>

That sounds good to me; I'm a bit concerned that NETMOD isn't the right
place for the profiles, but we don't have
a flood of them or a better place right now.

Regards,
Alia

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:44:09 +0200

Hi Alia,
> Hi Benoit,
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alia,
>
>         <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/>
>
>
>
>     We could debate whether draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor should have been
>     in core or netmod.
>     I propose to treat this doc. as the exception, and to keep the
>     guideline that mappings should be done in NETMOD.
>
>
> Sure - but having an indication of other WGs to coordinate with would 
> be useful.
I'm hesitant to provide a long list of WGs for NETMOD to coordinate 
with, while actually it should be the reverse: WGs dealing with YANG 
should coordinate with NETMOD.
I'm not too concerned about draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor, because we have a 
couple of key NETMOD players looking at this.

>     The NETMOD WG may include work on YANG modules device profiles
>     that do not otherwise fall under the charter of any other IETF
>     working group.
>
>
> That sounds good to me; I'm a bit concerned that NETMOD isn't the 
> right place for the profiles, but we don't have
Great.
Charter updated: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-netmod/

Are we good to go?

Regards, Benoit