Subject: [lmap] LMAP: time to declare success ... ?

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 15:21:12 +0100

Dear all,

No LMAP meeting at 99, 100, and 101.
No emails on the list for 6 months except from the chairs.
No active LMAP drafts.

The charter speaks about the control and report protocols.
draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt, now expired, describes in 7 pages how 
RESTCONF can be used with a YANG data model for LMAP.

Is it time to declare success and move on?
Unless there are spectacular activities in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I'll 
take action before stepping down as AD.

Note that publishing draft-ietf-lmap-restconf could still proceed in the 
Independent Submission Stream, if there is some future energy to do so.

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 17:54:18 +0100

On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 03:21:12PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Unless there are spectacular activities in the next 2 or 3 weeks, I'll take
> action before stepping down as AD.
> 

draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt depends on the NETCONF/RESTCONF
configuration drafts done in the NETCONF WG; these NETCONF I-Ds have
not been moving because people put priority on getting NMDA out of the
door.

Since nobody seems to be pushing for getting
draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt done, it might be OK to just let it
go.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2018 13:17:21 +0200

Hi,

I do not believe that we can really declare success without having
completed one of the key goals of our charter. My opinion is that
draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt needs to be done. We may be able to do it
without keeping the WG active. If the WG closes, my preference would be
OPSAWG rather than Independent Stream.

Regards,

Dan

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> lmap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap
>

---

From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:46:33 +0000

I’ve seen drafts-with-dependencies in other WGs get sent up the publication chain and then just sit in the RFC Editors queue until the dependencies were done. I had one that waited well over a year. Is there anything that is keeping this draft from having publication requested, and then just waiting? That is, do we think the work on the dependencies has a significant probability of either never being done or resulting in substantive changes to this draft?
Barbara

From: lmap [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dan Romascanu
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 6:17 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>; Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lmap] LMAP: time to declare success ... ?

Hi,
I do not believe that we can really declare success without having completed one of the key goals of our charter. My opinion is that draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt needs to be done. We may be able to do it without keeping the WG active. If the WG closes, my preference would be OPSAWG rather than Independent Stream.
Regards,
Dan

On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587<tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203587>         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103<tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203103>         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jacobs-2Duniversity.de_&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=y7rzcEB1rtIifz-D-N5bCafKuT4lI3bkHiTeTyllETY&s=0q2yvIhINQHNRhZzXxkajrIh7cDTFZs8hMEra5o43Kc&e=>>

_______________________________________________
lmap mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_lmap&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=y7rzcEB1rtIifz-D-N5bCafKuT4lI3bkHiTeTyllETY&s=sTTRhk-J5TtkzpFYjfAQPfgNOUmHMe1nbHbhOH75s6A&e=>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 16:20:06 +0100

In this case, we need to know what the final NETCONF/RESTCONF
configuration model offers us. Kent Watsen (main author of the
relevant documents) is arguing that the client side configuration
coming out of the NETCONF WG should be a grouping that this grouping
should be instantiated in the contexts where client side configuration
is needed. I think he does have a point there and if this is the final
result, we would have to instantiate this grouping somewhere in an
LMAP configuration YANG module (I was hoping we would not need that
but Kent might be right).

Since the stuff we depend on is not yet stable nor settled, I think we
should not move the wait state to the RFC editor queue. I am somewhat
optimistic that the NMDA work is done by IETF 101 and this may help
getting back to the other work items. That said, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
configuration work is generally not seen as the most pressing work in
the NETCONF WG so I would not make any predictions when this might be
stable enough to complete the LMAP work item.

/js

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:42:58 +0100

Hi Dan,

"declaring success?" was an image to mean "shall we close the WG?"

If my memory serves me well... At charter time (in 2013!), there were 
discussions regarding the data models and specific protocols. YANG was 
not necessary a given or even a goal. When specifying a YANG data model, 
that simplified the choice of associated protocols.

Regards, Benoit
> draft-ietf-lmap-restconf-04.txt needs to be done. We may be able to do 
> it without keeping the WG active. If the WG closes, my preference 
> would be OPSAWG rather than Independent Stream.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:54 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder 
> <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Phone: +49 421 200 3587 <tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203587>       
>      Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>     Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <tel:%2B49%20421%20200%203103>       
>      <https://www.jacobs-university.de/
>     <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>
>
>

---

From: Dan Romascanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:05:26 +0200

Hi Benoit,

Actually the WG made a choice also related to the protocol to associate
with YANG for LMAP - RESTCONF. The role of draft-ietf-lmap-restconf was to
document this choice and detail the specifics.

Just to be clear, I am personally fine with closing the WG. I believe that
in order to really complete the charter we need to approve and publish
draft-ietf-lmap-restconf to RFC. If the WG closes this can be done better
IMO in opsawg. It would be good to mention this in the WG closing message.

Regards,

Dan

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:42 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

> discussions regarding the data models and specific protocols. YANG was not
> necessary a given or even a goal. When specifying a YANG data model, that
> simplified the choice of associated protocols.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
> Hi,
>
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 <%2B49%20421%20200%203587>         Campus Ring 1
>> | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 <%2B49%20421%20200%203103>         <
>> https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>