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

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Sun, 31 March 2019 12:53 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 CAB1812014C for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 05:53:55 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 QGHqSVJtw69p for <lsr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 05:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668FA12012B for <lsr@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 05:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FF17604DC; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 08:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
References: <sa6wokiayd9.fsf@chopps.org> <2E6CA4AD-AD65-4A20-9545-1C81ED8B8968@tony.li> <B838962D-BDEA-46C9-9B9A-587484819784@cisco.com> <sa65zrz8sf1.fsf@chopps.org>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <acee@cisco.com>
Cc: "tony.li\@tony.li" <tony.li@tony.li>, "lsr\@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <sa65zrz8sf1.fsf@chopps.org>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 08:53:52 -0400
Message-ID: <sa61s2nxl0f.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/LlqgZ4AJkiitIPFlphiXcQj0jg4>
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 12:53:56 -0000

So to have something to look at while we discuss this I wrote a bare-bones module document for IS-IS reverse metrics:

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hopps-lsr-yang-isis-reverse-metric-00

If you look at the meat of that document and then imagine including it as an appendix or whatever with the functional IS-IS reverse metric document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8500) it doesn't seem that onerous of an addition. And it makes things very nice for the actual users/operators.

Overall publishing time should improve b/c we have 1 document to shepherd through the IETF process instead of 2. And, again, if the YANG module is not straight-forward then having separate documents makes sense to me as well.

I think we should give it a try with some small upcoming LSR draft -- we can always rip out the management section if it's causing issues.

Thanks,
Chris.