IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] YANG model for DHCPv6 - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-03

<ian.farrer@telekom.de> Thu, 21 July 2016 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ian.farrer@telekom.de>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110D512D9E5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:17:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gmMl2IefEA0Y for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64B3312DB24 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from q4de8psa169.blf.telekom.de ([10.151.13.200]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 21 Jul 2016 14:17:41 +0200
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464645600"; d="scan'208";a="1101678508"
Received: from he104836.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.226.67]) by q4de8psazkj.blf.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 21 Jul 2016 14:17:37 +0200
Received: from HE104834.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com (10.134.226.65) by HE104836.emea1.cds.t-internal.com (10.134.226.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:17:36 +0200
Received: from HE104834.EMEA1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::dfd:953:f2fd:5b2d]) by HE104834.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([fe80::dfd:953:f2fd:5b2d%25]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:17:36 +0200
From: ian.farrer@telekom.de
To: alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] YANG model for DHCPv6 - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-03
Thread-Index: AQHR4mcX5VHIM3kwwU2sqNkItSTp5qAizuoA
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:17:36 +0000
Message-ID: <7D13FBEE-6AA4-4EDB-844C-53C69BEBDB26@telekom.de>
References: <577FDCCE.5090107@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr16-awybeDPHjk7uRkesDtn8UfDewJ9_AwA3uxzR3KjhQ@mail.gmail.com> <54cb972a-7fe3-0637-f6b1-7ac01ec794ef@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1g5THruFQ30gLPK5XDaXLDJLLQeU2ZtzkMVZpwz5Svag@mail.gmail.com> <a0f4c01a-c59a-1435-398d-ecdea87e6f15@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a0f4c01a-c59a-1435-398d-ecdea87e6f15@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.18.0.160709
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.56.139.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <BF1A696269131F488586A8CEFCB0FDD4@cds.t-internal.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_w9IefqtTnJezd4Iiuj39C-qz7g>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] YANG model for DHCPv6 - draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-03
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:17:51 -0000

Hi,

I think this was answered in the room, but it bears saying again here.

The model was not designed following any specific client/server/relay implementation, but as the authors are familiar with a few different variants of these, their configuration will probably have influenced the design. The intention is certainly to keep it agnostic, though.

We are currently looking at modelling the configuration of some specific implementations so that we can compare them to the model in the draft.

Cheers,
Ian

On 20/07/16 11:13, "dhcwg on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu" <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

    Hello,
    
    I would like to ask you whether the YANG model in 
    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-03 has been developped starting from some 
    existing MIB?   Which one?  Or maybe it has been developped from scratch?
    
    Also, I would like to tell that in some SDN implementation I am involved 
    with, the YANG models are considered compared to the use of JSON.  At 
    this time we still debate which one we should use.
    
    Alex
    
    _______________________________________________
    dhcwg mailing list
    dhcwg@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email