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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Wed, 04 November 2020 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613643A1447; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:24:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eg_9NQX_-we1; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:24:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CE9B3A1430; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:23:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id h6so17283028pgk.4; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:23:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=vOxQGnqTDTMez3TxKmeqrBAMJkbB0puzJvex7XYr+d0=; b=rYUT7gQFoYNrmcnGNEt5OELRpi4NVCy+dWGnq/70qRe3oj9ITGoLQ6NSrmHm03VaCk 0H6/yvwmw4jVJGoMTBCFGXYeAy3XGJGjfhXMsV7upsOEhEPkHKhYde8QqUOMX4Adyk3Z kfEjC5j3sLy5SmudXV/0ykdDrmzyyxho5Xlu8XOKKWo/9wb5WQ8Zm7L444nu0cvucWju SOy/g4A/2cYWL/5qmnBWjgMpbJ74yIgkzZVvSQYhbQVJo8NwojHLiavL7xTfKguBS56q Yjwd2qhaQIpBHVhUbpWhCTiIDZAfmdmrhOONzgfKMZcuQJFPLmt7NnQz2iOZHt3Iigr6 iPZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=vOxQGnqTDTMez3TxKmeqrBAMJkbB0puzJvex7XYr+d0=; b=gjsdEuri8mmQwG6iPDI7FX984lkRiGfv0AojaRx/7Wc1F9o4ZCau4py/nY//W8mtXi N3RBpxg+nNggkjjdMZk3xlslwwBir0r2NGYFjWXsbKCjAXHklNLLdk7b0pTjq9MJEpiY pMUVmPoqdhHZU6rTIOsHQTyc7ubg3FEtYWslzJZaOnHfS2DASBfez4x7AWQIYaQMmlNn NPAyot8DeOCLZ25HZhT5BxLiFhnGjX9yC5pEK+eILxQoOYLc/Y+sEGuB7NOrENqUfjm6 DNcsAFTGDVEDVR4OL+XoNevP7oxp24gMIob3cbPRAK8D9Z0k5N5ptSYv4ArVt+JTatUC eVDg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531tJ2BhWhVCj3Zo1IcAm1eaCc2bIJqQrMJ+5o/SocUMh8+T3DZs +4B0VCzPfGl+M6iQjUxHpmw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7V4/rBSn5C/dXmprYxg1W5L0GRwS+3kl7M4v82MwRHWffcq2EhySbpeR7nrXZmRLWPkcr6g==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3798:: with SMTP id mz24mr5421926pjb.46.1604514232896; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:23:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:5600:5020:10d0:46a6:2615:2565? ([2601:647:5600:5020:10d0:46a6:2615:2565]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i10sm2807447pjz.44.2020.11.04.10.23.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:23:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0CA8EA3A-4BB0-46EF-8FAC-D11B846852B4@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5E68C2C4-37B2-4254-8597-092998CC8E1D"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 10:23:50 -0800
In-Reply-To: <160451197790.28880.17597785068103610213@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-babel-information-model@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
References: <160451197790.28880.17597785068103610213@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/8Z75gzgRiYsuQS6NNp6_XTZj-4k>
Subject: Re: [babel] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 18:24:03 -0000

Hi Rob,

> On Nov 4, 2020, at 9:46 AM, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 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
mjethanandani@gmail.com