Subject: [netmod] Thursday Interim Meeting Agenda

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:53:15 -0400

After going over the plan with Kent, we would like to continue the agenda from the
last interim meeting on Thursday. That is to say, Kent will continue with the comparison
of solutions.  From last time and in parallel with this, the WG discussion around the requirements 
seems to be converging on a detailed level of refinement of the requirements.  We will
recap the status here and goals.

	The details of the meeting are here:

The NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) Working Group will hold a virtual interim meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10am EDT (7am PDT; 2pm GMT).

The title is “Openconfig Solutions Discussion (continued)”.

The WebEx is:

Meeting number:640 686 530
Meeting password:1234
Audio connection:
1-877-668-4493 Call-in toll free number (US/Canada)
1-650-479-3208 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Access code: 640 686 530
Meeting link: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mf12aa8d28a159614cb415f2f32dcbebf

	--Tom (as WG co-chair)

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:56:04 -0400

Tom, chairs,

At the last meeting, I believe I heard that a statement of consensus - 
i.e., a consensus call -  on the requirements would be made by the chairs,  
on list. (With the understanding that there are details of the requirements 
that will need to be documented, presumably in a WG version of the chairs 
requirements draft.)

Are we at the point yet were this call can/will be made?

Thanks,
Lou

On September 29, 2015 3:53:56 PM Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The NETCONF Data Modeling Language (netmod) Working Group will hold a 
> virtual interim meeting on Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10am EDT (7am PDT; 
> 2pm GMT).
>
> Meeting link: 
> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=mf12aa8d28a159614cb415f2f32dcbebf
>
>
>
> 	--Tom (as WG co-chair)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:54:18 -0400

After discussing a bit more with Kent, we wanted to slightly amend 
the agenda for tomorrow to first start out with trying to wrap up the
discussion around the requirements.  We will review the issues 
as they are listed on the NETMOD Github issue tracker and try to
come to conclusions about the open issues:

https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues

	—Tom

> On Sep 29, 2015:3:53 PM, at 3:53 PM, Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:09:30 +0000

Hi Lou,

We (the chairs) are in the process of closing the issues filed against
draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs.   There is a documented process (state
machine) for this here:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/blob/master/README.md#issue-track
ing.  The issues are closed via WG consensus, specifically the VERIFY
state confirms the consensus on the mailing list.

So far we're off to a slow start - only 1 of 7 issues has made it to the
EDIT state.  I believe progress is being impeded by a lack of
participation from some.  Still, the WG will complete this work in time
and publish an updated draft, so that it san be referenced by follow-on
solution drafts, in both the NETMOD and NETCONF WGs.

Thanks,
Kent

On 9/30/15, 2:56 AM, "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 	After going over the plan with Kent, we would like to continue the
>>agenda 
>> from the
>> last interim meeting on Thursday. That is to say, Kent will continue
>>with 
>> the comparison
>> of solutions.  From last time and in parallel with this, the WG
>>discussion 
>> around the requirements
>> The title is ³Openconfig Solutions Discussion (continued)².
>>
>> The WebEx is:
>>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:52:26 +0200

> https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues

We can review the issues but what we really need I think are proposals
to define the terminology. Not creating proposals works well by
reviewing issues in an interim online meeting. Perhaps Kent can come
up with a proposal, put it down somewhere (e.g. a revision of the I-D)
and then let the mailing list bash out the details.

/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: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:04:39 -0400

Kent,
    Thank you for the update.  A couple of points below.

On 9/30/2015 11:09 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> participation from some.

Given the level of discussion to date and the previous statements by the
chairs, I hope you're not suggesting that we once again need to debate
each point before it's "verified".  In fact, at the last meeting I
thought I heard that each requirements was at least in the "verify"
state and that the chairs would soon make a call on mailing list
verification -- based solely on new issues raised.  Did I miss something?

>   Still, the WG will complete this work in time

So given the formal WG process, isn't time for the draft to at least be
a wg draft?

Thanks,
Lou