IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry

Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net> Tue, 02 December 2014 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <deanb@juniper.net>
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 E4F6E1A006E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:06:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 mmHfRcr0vgnp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0145.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 168651A000E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Dec 2014 19:06:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.148) by BN1PR05MB421.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.26.15; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 03:06:49 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.145]) by BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.84]) with mapi id 15.01.0026.003; Tue, 2 Dec 2014 03:06:49 +0000
From: Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
Thread-Topic: Blog: YANG Really Takes Off in the Industry
Thread-Index: AQHQDXWjTnozmsgPSE+qdeYcA4j0zJx7beOAgAABfACAAAZTAIAAAQgAgAAk6wCAAAFRAIAAAiQA
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 03:06:49 +0000
Message-ID: <4DD04125-EA18-499A-A060-219056E4ABE3@juniper.net>
References: <54770BA5.5060603@cisco.com> <809EFD2B-A845-46B7-A394-A9C9E5393CD5@piuha.net> <547874D6.1090001@cisco.com> <7890AE32-F7A9-4C32-9C3D-8251E70B1F29@lucidvision.com> <m2sigyhpxc.wl%randy@psg.com> <8BBBDF7F-00A0-44BD-AA64-DA7044D35012@lucidvision.com> <C51AC247-C16D-4452-874E-0D97BDB009EB@juniper.net> <547D0AEA.4020309@gmail.com> <0BFD0B22-EC45-473F-8E7A-7FB608B60E6F@juniper.net> <139D837E-F131-4791-A026-234699A7E617@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <139D837E-F131-4791-A026-234699A7E617@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB421;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB421;
x-forefront-prvs: 0413C9F1ED
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(189002)(199003)(24454002)(377454003)(50986999)(82746002)(93916002)(87936001)(2656002)(87286001)(83716003)(19580395003)(19580405001)(76176999)(57306001)(77156002)(31966008)(62966003)(92566001)(99396003)(92726001)(40100003)(120916001)(21056001)(4396001)(122556002)(86362001)(50226001)(106116001)(66066001)(105586002)(36756003)(104166001)(33656002)(46102003)(110136001)(93886004)(64706001)(107046002)(20776003)(106356001)(101416001)(89996001)(88136002)(97736003)(99286002)(95666004)(77096004)(104396001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB421; H:BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <E2AF1F141A14634889F04CFE7BF7FD81@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/w4RMU7kL4HkUovsLEUtkJRbG5Ug
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: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 03:06:55 -0000

On Dec 1, 2014, at 9:59 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
 wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net> wrote:
>> this is one part I don't understand. Why adding another language would make them less agile?
> 
> If the yang model isn't a good representation of what is being modeled, it can cause more harm than good.   

This is not the answer to my question. I asked about adding support for another language, not how the models are architected. Vendors can (and, in my personal opinion, will) provide proprietary and standard data models. The operator can choose then which model they want to use for their purposes.


> Same problem exists with MIBs.   When different implementations of the same thing use different base assumptions, it can be difficult to come up with a management model that is congruent with all of the different base assumptions and is still useful.   I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's a good bet that a poorly thought out model or a model that is based on experience with a single implementation will fail in this regard.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email