Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Sat, 03 September 2016 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DB012B00B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.548 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 8H74aNrML08G for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E80912B004 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 00:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:5e0:29:fffe:f04c:c452:2be4:c8f6] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:5e0:29:fffe:f04c:c452:2be4:c8f6]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CCE661356; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 09:45:08 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1472888708; bh=YkB5yS8siZg9kc8hLSjeAMTH6AvcJe8Sc/yYFUQqBaU=; h=From:Date:To; b=xo/gqVTqW2E8O9h1HK38VymWgaFQDnbSCzjDXxPSPOoOVc2tlJFGSpQtxb/IaCAv5 v5PFf1be8D5Upu6lDboumyHOfFEk5OaPYIPvolOoZbHWhHZ27Q1+M915v4spcpHEWB U2l7C6tbhN0c/n2vrSAAslxEC3veaYomHjKfxM2w=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <95379285-DFC6-410C-A558-D7FDE66A856A@juniper.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 09:45:08 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A72CBEBD-141D-4B07-99EB-AE4FB144736E@nic.cz>
References: <08A2A580-BEA2-4AF0-9FFB-0F995B9DC778@juniper.net> <4CF2F47E-ABF2-4368-8793-64E81AA02375@juniper.net> <20160831184040.GA4834@elstar.local> <4110_1472804197_57C93565_4110_1509_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BD66D91@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <699C9AEE-6AB8-4B60-B1BC-E4D93B733E6A@nic.cz> <95379285-DFC6-410C-A558-D7FDE66A856A@juniper.net>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.7 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/GuIyRP5XpeW-YbcBVggOEVG_trI>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 07:45:14 -0000

> On 02 Sep 2016, at 21:30, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> It holds.  Some have FUD.  I do not.

Then you probably already know what the solution is going to be. I don't.

Anyway, if the consensus was to split config and state data into separate modules, we would have to tell all module developers who build upon the core routing model to split their augments into config and state parts as well, because otherwise the change to ietf-routing would be useless.  

Lada

> 
> K.
> 
> 
> On 9/2/16, 4:35 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> 
>    Hi Stephane,
> 
>    if we do any changes to the core routing module, then I am afraid all modules that depend on it will have to follow suit. In particular, if we put config and state data into separate modules, protocol modules should do the same.
> 
>    I don't like the idea of putting the core routing model and all work that depends on it on hold until we reach a decision regarding opstate. So, *if* the separation of config and state data gives a reasonable guarantee that at least the config part will be compatible with the ultimate opstate solution (whatever it is), it IMO makes sense to do it. But I am not even sure that the premise holds.
> 
>    Lada
> 
>> On 02 Sep 2016, at 10:16, <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> <stephane.litkowski@orange.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> As this model is a base for multiple routing modules, it would be good to align the op-state modeling between this model and the existing routing related modules (so we can also close the work on multiple routing yang models).
>> So if core routing model uses foo:/foo foo:/foo-state, do we keep this modeling also for our protocol models and close the work ? 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Stephane
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 20:41
>> To: Kent Watsen
>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:11:14PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> [as a contributor]
>>> 
>>> My only comment on this draft is that I’d prefer it if the “routing-state” tree were moved into another YANG module, so that it could be more easily deprecated when the opstate solution comes.   I suggested this before, with regards to rfc6087bis Section 5.23, but that thread seemed to have petered out, but now here we are and my opinion remains the same.
>>> 
>> 
>> We already have foo:/foo /foo:foo-state modules and while we can now start a series of foo:/foo and foo-state:/foo-state modules in the hope that this will eventually 'easier' in the future, it might also be that we just create more variation and confusion.
>> 
>> /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
>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> 
>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
>> Thank you.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
>    --
>    Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>    PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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