IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

"Ambika Prasad Tripathy (ambtripa)" <ambtripa@cisco.com> Thu, 27 August 2015 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ambtripa@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50A41A882C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 06:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 YxBP2kRrYgX8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF2E1A6EED for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1666; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440683652; x=1441893252; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=D+JeRu2zHV+t22qVk48I5Ih8mKEdJoV7D4Bneky+Cx0=; b=WJIxcWJz3ti9EsJCGYNS5/afOYoUfoVovVgCdd9DPPYIT/XZ2Hrgd/oX 4t9miE7lwhir4d4uEeSczWvfx9k/QxVh6O2UXyZm00Dy6KLb7djzA2Hqd ur0UWIhvKDByy8B94PM+K6PFgN1faVyDuHSowlOuv1gFxcpF5bkN6EJN7 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CmAgAfFd9V/51dJa1dgxtUaQa9cQEJgW4KhTFKAoEvOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBAQMBAQEBNzQQBwQCAQgOAwQBAQEKFAkHJwsUCQgCBAESCBGIDQgNyDcBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBIpegQOEWjgGgxKBFAWVPQGnUiaDf3GBSIEFAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,422,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="182273510"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Aug 2015 13:54:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (xch-rcd-005.cisco.com [173.37.102.15]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7RDsB3R005053 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:54:11 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:54:10 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (173.36.12.86) by xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:54:10 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.202]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:54:09 -0500
From: "Ambika Prasad Tripathy (ambtripa)" <ambtripa@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "t. petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Y34 - root node
Thread-Index: AQHQzfwQU3Yk796WUk+nXDjZCMdPCJ36tNgA//+74oqAAFbtgIAAz0+kgADCtACABfPJgIAC/IuAgAAMEQCAAKj6AIAAC1YAgAC+7gCAC50MgIAABoyAgAEhX4CAAA01gP///7DRgAaoK4CABFzVx4ABPtUAgABfPQCAAAobAP//untw
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:54:08 +0000
Message-ID: <3B675C3A8DF102408C754E30986E43CF110C1378@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
References: <55D36473.90609@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRP3omx37XmEJfPwg6eELuSKF=YL8pgpnvLh9PQxgV62A@mail.gmail.com> <55D45CAF.2070605@cisco.com> <20150819.132555.871710491924929960.mbj@tail-f.com> <013601d0da9b$907f6b00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20150823170415.GA77197@elstar.local> <012901d0e01e$12c22b20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20150827064240.GB87367@elstar.local> <CABCOCHQYhUp95AmfSvkF8YF3uUUF4swhU8542o9F-5qHBa7sog@mail.gmail.com> <55DF09C0.2020708@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <55DF09C0.2020708@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.142.110.128]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1XMA46Ixm2cyDRjPAjQuv3mnZyI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 13:54:13 -0000

IMHO, there should a YANG Construct should allow modules to be reused within another module with a restriction of looping.

When the YANG modules organized at controller, or any manager, re use of grouping or a particular XPath mount makes life static in YANG. 

Br,
Ambika Prasad Tripathy (ambtripa)
-----Original Message-----
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 6:30 PM
To: Andy Bierman; Juergen Schoenwaelder; t. petch; Martin Bjorklund; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node



On 8/27/2015 8:23 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> I don't see the 6 modules that have already been published so far in 
> RFCs as the problem.  I suggest focusing on the 194 modules that have 
> not been published.

100% agree
>   Should the IETF spend a year or two debating the ONE TRUE PERFECT 
> uber-tree? 6 months?
No, IMO we should take a stab at it and go with our best understanding and consensus -- that is after all what the I*E*TF is all about.

> How long will it take for all interested vendors to agree where every 
> little thing goes, before starting on any of it.
>

The DT's proposal seems to be a consensus starting point (from my DT and
individual perspective, based on *many* discussions with vendors and
users) in at least the routing area.  Outside the routing area, I've
heard three or four individual objections.  Not saying we have it right,
but just that we have a solid start.

Lou


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email