|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
You are free to participate in 802.3 as an individual participant with the understanding that it remains to be determined what action, if any, 802.1 may take on any of this thread’s topics.
A pre-PAR subgroup does not develop PARs/CSDs. Also, per the July 802.1 opening plenary deck, 802.1 is migrating towards a new work process:
“Migration towards vetting all new work in Nendica
• Strong proposals can be directed to the TG/WG to initiate a PAR
• Proposals needing more consensus can be further developed”
This work process is being refined. There has been no discussion of vetting new work in YANGsters, regardless of the specifics in this case. Clearly, more discussion is needed, which is delayed by many of us being or planning to be off this summer. In the meantime, all are welcome to request agenda time and contribute to progress discussion; however, a PAR/CSD can only be generated if approved by a WG motion. In 802.1, the PAR/CSD generation would then take place in a TG.
From: Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfield@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
So my actions will be to contact the IEEE 802.3 leadership and discuss what work needs to be done and how to get it addressed.
As for the 802.1 PAR needed, what is the proper process to get that discussion started? Would it be ok to discuss that in YANGsters (since YANGsters is a pre-PAR activity). That is a process question so I have included Jodi to the discussion.
From: Rouyer, Jessy (Nokia - US/Dallas) <jessy.rouyer@xxxxxxxxx>
Regarding LLDP YANG as an equivalent to LLDP-EXT-DOT3-MIB, I agree with Mick and Paul: the transition from IEEE Std 802.1AB-2005 over time to IEEE Std 802.3 calls in my view for 802.3 to determine the best course of action.
Regarding RSTP/MSTP YANG, the work would require a new 802.1 PAR and CSD in my view. Of course this would require volunteer(s) to step up to facilitate PAR/CSD generation and, if approved, draft development. I would expect such work to be of interest outside 802.1, for example in BBF.
From: stds-802-yang@xxxxxxxx <stds-802-yang@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Mick Seaman
On the 802.3 LLDP use, agree with Paul.
On missing RSTP/MSTP parameters, I believe that this would be best covered by a new PAR. It is probably specialized enough to make attaching it to another project a drag on both it, and the specialized work of the other project. That makes the question as to whether it could be argued to be 'editorial corrections and omissions in the description of existing functionality' moot (also the 'errors and omissions' text in the Qcw PAR is more narrowly worded). It should not be a large project, the only difficulty is reviewer bandwidth - making sure we don't accidentally change the existing functionality.
On 8/4/2021 11:47 AM, Paul Congdon wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-YANG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-YANG&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-YANG list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-YANG&A=1