Subject: [netmod] operational state: next step

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 22:30:30 +0100

Dear all:

Background: the operational state is a blocking factor for the 
publication of the YANG models. For example, I've been told that the 
ISIS and OSPF models are ready, pending resolution on the operational state.

Let me try to clarify the situation and the next steps.

During the NETMOD WG meeting in Yokohama, Kent, as a chair, did a hum 
related to draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-00 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs/>
As explained during the previous operational state-related interim 
meetings, we wanted to extract the requirements.
Kent carefully asked: "humm if in you are in favor of the definitions of 
the requirements", meaning: have we correctly documented the requirements?
draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs/> will 
be published soon, with no changes to the requirements scope, but only 
clarifying text and editorial changes.
Once published, a WGLC will follow, with hopefully a quick publication.

Now, what is the next step regarding the solution?
As mentioned during the NETMOD meeting in Japan, there are currently 3 
proposals:
     1. openconfig draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate/>
     2. based on the data stores draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate-00 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwatsen-netmod-opstate/>
     3. based on the metadata draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang-01 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilton-netmod-opstate-yang/>

During the NETMOD WG meeting, Kent asked the sense of the room on which 
solution the community favored. There was an advantage for solution 2.
However, we want to make that the WG to make an informed decision.

Kent and I have searching for independent people who could analyze the 
different solutions, and provide the pros/cons of each solutions. Note 
that some of this has already been done (Rob Wilton's presentation in 
Yokohama, YANG Model Coordination Group email to the list, etc.)
Lou Berger and Acee Lindem have agreed to help with this, with a 
tentative date of Jan 15 for an initial analysis.
They will start collecting the arguments. Please direct emails to both 
of them ([email-masked], [email-masked]). Note that for discussions, 
the WG mailing list is more appropriate.

This process should ease the solution selection.

Regards, Benoit