IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bjorklund-netmod-snmp-cfg-00

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 22 October 2010 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E8F3A68AB for <netmod@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.833
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ly+DUJVhENcU for <netmod@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (de-0316.d.ipeer.se [213.180.79.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76C63A68C4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (138.162.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [83.241.162.138]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ACA4E616012; Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:11:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:11:04 +0200
Message-Id: <20101022.111104.235838872.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netmod@ietf.org, spakes@snmp.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSU.4.58.1010211717010.1644@adminfs>
References: <sdd3r3se5r.fsf@wjh.hardakers.net> <4CC09A7C.6020506@andybierman.com> <Pine.GSU.4.58.1010211717010.1644@adminfs>
X-Mailer: Mew version 7.0.50 on Emacs 23.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [netmod] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-bjorklund-netmod-snmp-cfg-00
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:09:30 -0000

Hi,

David Spakes <spakes@snmp.com> wrote:
> At the very least, the working group should
> produce a document that is the YANG equivalent to RFC 2863.  IMHO,
> it should exactly mirror the existing objects, at least the ones
> that are not deprecated.

I disagree.  If all we do is put YANG syntax around existing MIB
objects, we haven't achieved anything.  We should concentrate on
interface configuration.  It is not important to duplicate all
interface counters etc.  One thing that *is* important though is how a
YANG interface configuration model relates to the MIB.  (For example, 
how the interface name maps to ifIndex.)


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email