The meeting minutes are available here: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-121-nmop?edit
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:01:21Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "On the BBC, you always see quotes from X, as X*(formally known as Twitter).
\nI'm hoping that i see a lot of SEMAP (*formally known as Digital Map)
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:14:57Z"}, {"author": "Joe Clarke", "text": "You mean SIMAP :-)
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:15:15Z"}, {"author": "Oscar de Dios", "text": "SIMAP!!!
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:15:22Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "That's the one :-)
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:15:25Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Sorry!
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:15:34Z"}, {"author": "Boris Khasanov", "text": "Looks that Mic1 is not working
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:28:58Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "For all the hackathons, let me remind that we have a template for reporting hackathons that is available at: https://github.com/ietf-wg-nmop/Misc/blob/main/Hackathons/report-template.md
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:34:15Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "Next time, it will be great if we can agree on a common setup/objectives for both SIMAP hackathons
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:34:51Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "@meetecho, we have an issue with the mic. in the room. Most likely issue: battery.
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:41:08Z"}, {"author": "Samier Barguil", "text": "Do we have this toolkit available for testing?
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:41:22Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "@Beno\u00eet Claise the AV team should have just switched the battery
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:42:40Z"}, {"author": "Beno\u00eet Claise", "text": "@Lorenzo, thanks. done
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:42:58Z"}, {"author": "Vishnu Beeram", "text": "How do you measure \"complexity\"?
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:46:28Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "What was meant by \"a profile\"?
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:49:40Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-te-topology-profiles/
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:50:10Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "@Med, thanks
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:50:47Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "TE topology provides a mechanism to navigate across TE layers. If we define another mechanism to navigate between layers, how these two mechanisms will co-exist in a network encompassing TE and non-TE layers?
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:51:08Z"}, {"author": "Vishnu Beeram", "text": "A profile allows you to pick and choose certain portions of a large model to cater to a particular deployment scenario.. the ask from Italo and others is to figure out a way to define a standardized way of using these profiles..
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:52:15Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Perhaps this should be flagged as an issue in https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:52:54Z"}, {"author": "Mohamed Boucadair", "text": "+1 Rob
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:53:09Z"}, {"author": "Vishnu Beeram", "text": "+1
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:53:11Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "Which doesn't mean that it will necessarily happen in YANG Next, but that it would be considered.
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:53:33Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "Some vendors will use the TE topology mechanisms to navigate across any layer (TE and non-TE), others will use the new mechanism to navigate across any layer (TE and non TE) and very few vendors will use the TE topology mechanism to navigate across TE layers and the new mechanisms to navigate across non-TE layers
\nThe end result is that multi-vendor interoperability will become a nightmare
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:54:05Z"}, {"author": "Robert Wilton", "text": "A YANG Package definition (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-packages/) with a deviation file to remove the subtrees that you don't want would effectively define a schema.
\nHowever, today YANG, RFC 7950, says that you should only use deviations to represent implementation conformance, not to build new structures (because they probably won't interoperate cleanly) if/when you try and define them together.
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:57:31Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "Robert Wilton said:
\n\n\nPerhaps this should be flagged as an issue in https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues
\n
I agree
\nWe have setup a side meeting tomorrow to start discussing the problem statement and use cases to define YANG profiles (and views) with the target to submit an I-D to Netmod WG at IETF 122
\nWe can use some time to submit a new issue on YANG-next github
", "time": "2024-11-05T18:57:32Z"}, {"author": "Italo Busi", "text": "Robert Wilton said:
\n\n\nA YANG Package definition (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-packages/) with a deviation file to remove the subtrees that you don't want would effectively define a schema.
\nHowever, today YANG, RFC 7950, says that you should only use deviations to represent implementation conformance, not to build new structures (because they probably won't interoperate cleanly) if/when you try and define them together.
\n
Deviation and features can sometimes be too coarse grained. For example, the subset of TE topology implemented may be different for different network technologies.
\nBut in the long term the YANG package definition can be extended to include not only deviation files but also profiles (I am not sure that the timing for the initial version of the YANG package could match with the profile definition)
", "time": "2024-11-05T19:00:31Z"}]