Re: [babel] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11: (with COMMENT)

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

> On Nov 4, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-information-model/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for this document.
> 
> I support Ben's discuss regarding reusing the terminology from NMDA.  I think
> that the document should have a normative reference to RFC 8342, and probably
> explain that in some places the information model is using the same concepts of
> configuration and operational data separation described in NMDA.

While I am not against a reference to the terminology from NMDA in the information model, (BTW, I am ignorant on what it means for an informational draft to have a normative reference), I am not sure whether it needs to normative or whether it can be informative. By making it normative, are we making this information model more YANG specific? Could the reference to NMDA be normative in the YANG model of this information model  (which the YANG model already does)?

Thanks.

> 
> I also support Alvaro's question about whether the source-routing component
> should be included.
> 
> This is just a comment, and I'm not proposing that you change tack, but I have
> to confess that I question how beneficial publishing an Information Model
> really is.  I understand that the goal here is to be able to publish two
> different data models,  one based on YANG and other based on BBF's [TR-181].   
> But what we end up with is an information model defined in a custom ad hoc
> language, which will naturally necessitate for the YANG and TR-181 models to be
> generated by hand, and for all three models to be kept up to date and
> consistent with each other.  Hence, I wonder whether retrospectively it would
> have been better to just define the YANG model in IETF and ask BBF to use that
> as source reference to construct the TR-181 model from, ideally as a
> programmatic conversion, or failing that by hand.  At least that way there are
> only two things to keep in sync rather than three.
> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]