Re: [netmod] Y34

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen, 

On 8/1/15, 2:51 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[e-mail] on behalf of
[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Andy,
>> 
>> On 07/27/2015 12:58 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > I don't think a standard for relocating subtrees would be worth it.
>> > I am not in favor of moving /interfaces or /system to a new location.
>> > That's not how YANG works. It only allows "obsolete and start over".
>> > 
>> > I would suggest pursuing solutions that don't cause
>> > as much disruption and expense as possible.
>> > 
>> 
>> I think it would be really good to explore other, less "disruptive"
>> options.
>>
>
>I think the first step is to find out whether there is a problem worth
>to be fixed. Why are the RFCs in question broken? (Yes, I have read
>the openconfig IDs,

Section 1.1 in 
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt
lists the goals of a generic model structure that will accommodate most
modern network devices. I guess you don’t agree that these are desirable?

Thanks,
Acee 



>I listened to the virtual interim meetings, I
>assume you have read draft-bjorklund-netmod-openconfig-reply.)



>
>Lets get the core of the openconfig argument on the table why the
>existing RFCs are flawed.
>
>/js
>
>-- 
>Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod