IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 28 November 2014 13:13 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B151A1AFB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:13:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 U8CqbTkqTKJo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E98AC1A1AD3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 05:12:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3085; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1417180377; x=1418389977; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=PPXAEATGXCBCe81jBpRxIf/z/Za7JFLtLkOJjGpVzHA=; b=UXXhlhIgU+ZEmql1B2NZz6cEMubrxMSYp0iiy5Z0N819qp9P7l3sMIU9 k7ssQ2/bA/+2NMkqori8AMTSiLW41yu8rVu+Hj83gnbedduKYz3oPgJNH ZfeyczcQfqZbm2UujsEp446u3ftgH/ixx94bE9YyhzRurcvlT2b+My2BE o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqoEAG90eFStJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg1fIDwEJhk0CgSQBAQEBAX2EAwEBBAEBAXUBEAsEHRYPCQMCAQIBFTAGDQEFAgEBEIgsDdIkAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSQeweETQWEeJcvglqIDI8Qg30+MIJKAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,477,1413244800"; d="scan'208,217";a="248701290"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2014 13:12:55 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sASDCsMX015872; Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:12:54 GMT
Message-ID: <547874D6.1090001@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 14:12:54 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
References: <54770BA5.5060603@cisco.com> <809EFD2B-A845-46B7-A394-A9C9E5393CD5@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <809EFD2B-A845-46B7-A394-A9C9E5393CD5@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070403060203030605050901"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/N5nJpJTNgHVpjYv4w4dx3s6y1e8
Cc: IETF-Discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 13:13:03 -0000

Hi Jari,

Let me open the discussion.
What is important at this point in time is the coordination of those 
YANG models.
All of them come at the same time, and this required some urgent attention.
Focusing on the routing YANG models with "Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" 
<Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org> 
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord> is a step in the 
right direction. Indeed the community needs to agree on how to model 
IGPs, BGP, the topology, etc...
However, the coordination should also occur with the data models 
developed in other IETF WGs. And the IETF might need to reach out to 
different SDOs/consortia.
As the operators told me: we can't afford to develop those data models 
independently from each others.

Regards, Benoit
> Thanks for writing this article, Benoit!
>
> The wave of new data models is obviously interesting and exciting. But I wanted to open a discussion with you all on what we should do with regards to serving this need better. Is there something that we could do better at the IETF to be able deal with this new work?
>
> Jari
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email