Re: [netmod] comments on draft-clemm-netmod-yang-network-topo-00.txt

On Aug 1, 2013, at 11:04 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I just want to add that I was very impressed with this draft.
> A lot of work was done on the design and the actual data node
> specifications, and it shows.
> 
> I support adoption of this draft as a NETMOD work item,
> to produce a standards track RFC.
> (agree w/Juergen Experimental is not desirable).

+1

Lada

> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have read the document with quite some interest since it kind of
>> paves the way to do _network_ management instead of just device
>> management. I am wondering about two little technical details:
>> 
>> a) Why do you not use YANG identities to represent topology types?
>> 
>> b) Why do you use inet:uri as the base type for node-id, link-id, and
>>   tp-id?
>> 
>> The I-D status says 'Intended Status: Experimental' - was your idea to
>> submit this for eventual publication as an experimental RFC?
>> 
>> /js
>> 
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C