IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sun, 31 March 2019 07:09 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DAA120282 for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
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 O6DUnJ_dm-GY for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B2212017A for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 00:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CE7D9B1; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1554016169; bh=WKkgqgPl5MYLwVBDjLaUJwnHnehLq4RNgINxygFzmN0=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=moVPa51qNhKsCmgR11JGyQ05h+c1dcVwHUpYalxIVgkgM8V4KuFpkQ/EGpLKJjnD7 fzEQMqctJ+/GhZuaNQgckASdtLUKi2lQmvOJwg1m39gASmvpI7UCT0lIqRDibGONbx W6g5KAUyoCHx+byx8kk7WuDdbJWI2N4aZEc0C050=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9C9B0; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 09:09:29 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
cc: "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxMReYFQ8atP3JX9NsauB4xqtnsYCZyqjaYHH+EGi2b4Fvj=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1903310908000.3161@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <sa6wokiayd9.fsf@chopps.org> <2E6CA4AD-AD65-4A20-9545-1C81ED8B8968@tony.li> <B838962D-BDEA-46C9-9B9A-587484819784@cisco.com> <CAHxMReYFQ8atP3JX9NsauB4xqtnsYCZyqjaYHH+EGi2b4Fvj=Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/3TqmD1YS4Agzwnys2PKwpWXhroI>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] When to augment LSR base YANG modules...
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 07:09:33 -0000

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019, Rob Shakir wrote:

> That being said -- this means one should probably expect each LSR base 
> module to be revised with most new LSR RFCs. With the current agility of 
> the review and publication process -- I'm not sure that is realistic 
> either..

I have discussed this with Benoit before and I've voiced my opinion that 
the RFC process of handling YANG modules is very slow and cumbersome and 
doesn't seem to yield desired results. I think the IETF needs a different 
process to handle YANG modules that is more agile and speedy.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email