Re: [netmod] A reworking of RFC8343

[Schönwälder, Jürgen <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:53:42PM +0200, Dmytro Shytyi wrote:
> Hello Martin,
> 
> 
> 
> We are interested in  some specific functionality provided by RFC 8343 yang model. 
> 
> So we derivied the yang model from RFC 8343, modified it and gave module name , prefix with some modifications like "ucpe-interfaces",
> 
> but in description we kept the reference to original RFC(in future we wil modify the description to say that it is not original RFC 8343 yang module.)
> 
> IMHO it is wrong to not presice in the description(reference) of the module / RFC that was we find usefull in our work.
> 
> 
> 
> >Clearly unacceptable.  Unclear why a ucpe can't implement 
> 
> ietf-interfaces from RFC 8343. 
> I will try to give some ideas here.  
> 
> 
> 
> 1. uCPE phy interface has "vPorts" to witch "vLinks are assigned". "vLinks "connect" the phy interface with  "vPort" of vswitch. Thus we may add to the derieved from RFC 8343 module the list of "vPorts" for each phy interface.
> 
> example with 1 phy interface:
> 
> 
> 
>                               +-------------------------------------
> 
>                               |                  UCPE
> 
>                   +------------+
> 
>                   |                        |------vPort 1---vlink---(vport_sw)vswitch(vport_sw)--vlink---.....----WAN
> 
> LAN----|   Phy             |------vPort 2
> 
>                   |   interface     |
> 
>                   +-------------+
> 
>                               |
> 
>                               +----------------------------------------------

You can augment a model without having to copy it. Whether your
augmentation makes sense I can't tell, not also that interface can be
layered.

> 2. If we include the yang module from the RFC 8343 to the set of yang models by default it goes in the root of config mode. i.e:
> 
> EXAMPLE:
> 
> config t
> 
>       interfaces interface....
> 
> 
> 
> When we have a parent module we need to place the RFC 8343 module to under the parent module (like in the draft draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04). 
> 
> Hence the RFC8343  may be modified to add the augment statement(as it is dome in draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04)  to put the "interfaces interface" under the parent module like
> 
> EXAMPLE:
> conifg t
> 
>       ucpe "ucpe X" interfaces interface...

Cut and paste to change the 'nesting' is _not_ proper usage of
YANG. The value of YANG is that objects with the same semantics are
predictable, this gives you interoperability. By copying modules to
other places (and tweaking semantics), you break the interoperability
promise.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>