Subject: [netmod] ietf 89 wg meeting summary

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 09:30:54 +0100

Hi,

below is a high-level summary of yesterday's WG meeting that I just
submitted to the OPS ADs and that will be also part of the minutes.

  The NETMOD meeting in London was attended by about 70 people. All
  currently charter work items are either in the RFC editor queue, on
  the IESG agenda, or they passed WG last call and are on the way to the
  area director. The discussion of a proposed new WG charter resulted in
  some minor modifications. The active contributors indicated support
  for the new charter and there were no objections. The revised charter
  text including the modifications has been circulated on the mailing
  list right after the meeting. After the charter discussion, the WG
  started to go through a list of issues that may be addressed in a YANG
  maintenance release in order to determine which issues are in scope,
  out of scope, or need more discussion. The status of the stateless
  packet filter data model and a revision of the guidelines document has
  been reported.

/js

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

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 12:49:37 +0100 (CET)

> submitted to the OPS ADs and that will be also part of the minutes.

I note that there is absolutely no mention of the discussion I started 
that took a substantial part of the meeting.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:12:31 +0100

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:49:37PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I note that there is absolutely no mention of the discussion I
> started that took a substantial part of the meeting.

Perhaps you can be more concrete and spell out what you find missing.

Note that the summary is written primarily for the ADs and thus there
is a slight focus on chartered items and the charter; the summary does
not attempt to replace the minutes.

/js

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 15:16:40 +0100 (CET)

> not attempt to replace the minutes.

"There was a request from a participant for guidance from the netmod group 
regarding tools and ways of collaborating when developing YANG models, 
and regarding the current process of developing YANG standards by means of 
publishing them as RFCs instead of a more light-weight process. 
This was discussed but no consensus was reached on how to proceed."

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 16:03:48 +0100

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:16:40PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> "There was a request from a participant for guidance from the netmod
> group regarding tools and ways of collaborating when developing YANG
> models, and regarding the current process of developing YANG
> standards by means of publishing them as RFCs instead of a more
> light-weight process. This was discussed but no consensus was
> reached on how to proceed."
> 

I have updated the text to read as follows:

  The NETMOD meeting in London was attended by about 70 people. All
  currently charter work items are either in the RFC editor queue, on
  the IESG agenda, or they passed WG last call and are on the way to the
  area director. The discussion of a proposed new WG charter resulted in
  some minor modifications. The WG also discussed the ecosystem around
  YANG data model development and support and how it could be improved
  to better support and accelerate implementations of YANG modules. The
  active contributors indicated support for the new charter and there
  were no objections. The revised charter text including the
  modifications has been circulated on the mailing list right after the
  meeting. After the charter discussion, the WG started to go through a
  list of issues that may be addressed in a YANG maintenance release in
  order to determine which issues are in scope, out of scope, or need
  more discussion. The status of the stateless packet filter data model
  and a revision of the guidelines document has been reported.

/js

---

From: "Yi Yang (yiya)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 22:31:22 +0000

For the YANG maintenance release, one feature may be useful is to support
constraints for union type. For example, a server can be defined as union
of domain-name/ip-addresss. However, domain-name should only be allowed
when a dns-server exists.

Yi 

On 3/6/14 8:30 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 08:59:40 +0100

Hi,

we will soon start a structured list of issues (Martin is working on
it based on the list used during the WG meeting) and then contributors
can submit any issues they want to get fixed. But to make things easy
to track, please use appropriate email threads.

/js

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 21:07:03 +0000

>group 

It seems that working groups already have access to an issue tracker and a
version control system:

    Trac: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/trackers

    SVN: 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/misc/venue/wiki/IetfSpecificFeatures#SourceContr
olRepositorySVN

For NETCONF and NETMOD WGs:

  NETCONF
    - SVN:  http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netconf
    - Trac: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/trac/report

  NETMOD:
    - SVN:  http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/netmod
    - Trac: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/trac/report

Looking at what's there already, it seems that they've been used, but not
extensively; we just need to dust them off and use them.  As I recall, the
objectives are:

  1) use SVN for co-authors to collaborate on draft
  2) use Trac to drive closure on draft issues

Makes sense?  Should we each just start doing this?  Do we need to agree
on any naming conventions to keep things properly isolated?

Cheers,
Kent