IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

"Osborne, Eric" <eric.osborne@level3.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <eric.osborne@level3.com>
X-Original-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7EB1A0056 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 4Q7IrFUzNph8 for <isis-wg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:52:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.251.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A70941A005D for <isis-wg@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 06:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [216.82.250.99:44887] by server-3.bemta-12.messagelabs.com id 21/02-02061-EA8F8D35; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:52:46 +0000
X-Env-Sender: eric.osborne@level3.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-126.messagelabs.com!1406728365!12860930!1
X-Originating-IP: [209.245.18.37]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 7258 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2014 13:52:45 -0000
Received: from bge23000.messagelabs1.prod.broomfield1.level3.net (HELO messagelabs1.level3.com) (209.245.18.37) by server-8.tower-126.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jul 2014 13:52:45 -0000
Received: from USIDCWVEHT02.corp.global.level3.com (usidcwveht02.corp.global.level3.com [10.1.142.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "USIDCWVEHT02", Issuer "USIDCWVEHT02" (not verified)) by messagelabs1.level3.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 307BB1FB1B; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:52:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USIDCWVEMBX08.corp.global.level3.com ([fe80::20f7:9e5b:2efa:2ad8]) by USIDCWVEHT02.corp.global.level3.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 07:52:44 -0600
From: "Osborne, Eric" <eric.osborne@level3.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>, "Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung) (myeung@cisco.com)" <myeung@cisco.com>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang (zzhang@juniper.net)" <zzhang@juniper.net>
Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
Thread-Index: Ac+l4qtZhrh5j6gJR3OwDOjb/Qkn+QAA+BmwAC3vweoBA4J/gAAib2EAABhWxgAAAfMKgAAeoD8AAAwtUaD//8ifAIAAYn0g
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:52:43 +0000
Message-ID: <63CB93BC589C1B4BAFDB41A0A19B7ACDF036B4@USIDCWVEMBX08.corp.global.level3.com>
References: <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A65036804905@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4223_1406059402_53CEC38A_4223_4491_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF92044506@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <0F26584357FD124DB93F1535E4B0A65036804A82@szxema508-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20140728153855.GB18120@juniper.net> <23146_1406621095_53D755A7_23146_1836_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9205E34E@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAG4d1rf_BLx8Wecyk=vTT-Dt2=OTjv+D3+xL_SxUpAQsa8ZLHg@mail.gmail.com> <88642978e1934ae1bd51942a7808358b@BLUPR05MB292.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <25214_1406718872_53D8D398_25214_18281_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9205F947@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <63CB93BC589C1B4BAFDB41A0A19B7ACDF02E52@USIDCWVEMBX08.corp.global.level3.com> <6872_1406727913_53D8F6E9_6872_6061_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9205FAD4@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <6872_1406727913_53D8F6E9_6872_6061_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF9205FAD4@OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.1.196.205]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_63CB93BC589C1B4BAFDB41A0A19B7ACDF036B4USIDCWVEMBX08corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/isis-wg/3uQARzTfBK8IBBtPAV1VubXYb60
Cc: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, "Wunan (Eric)" <eric.wu@huawei.com>, "isis-wg@ietf.org" <isis-wg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01
X-BeenThere: isis-wg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IS-IS working group <isis-wg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/isis-wg/>
List-Post: <mailto:isis-wg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg>, <mailto:isis-wg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 13:52:49 -0000

[trimmed to get under size limit]

I just skimmed rfc6087 and it didn’t talk about this sort of thing.  I think it might be nice for netmod to do (I’ll start a separate thread over there).  It’s not because I want to be pedantic about TE models.  If YANG takes off and we don’t have some guidelines that strongly recommend reuse, we’ll end up with a very wide, flat model space with minute differences between models.




eric

From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkowski@orange.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:45 AM
To: Osborne, Eric; Chris Bowers; Alia Atlas; Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung) (myeung@cisco.com); Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang (zzhang@juniper.net)
Cc: Hannes Gredler; Wunan (Eric); isis-wg@ietf.org; Ladislav Lhotka (lhotka@nic.cz)
Subject: RE: [Isis-wg] comments on draft-litkowski-isis-yang-isis-cfg-01

“one of the goals of any model is to reuse parts from other models”


Ø  I’m not aware of any sort of design model for the routing part … expect that it must be aligned with the core routing model. Maybe some Yang doctor’s have another view …

Yang model definition is just starting … it’s time to define such constraint if it does not exist

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email