Re: [netmod] Y34 - root node

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Berger" <[e-mail]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "t. petch" <[e-mail]>; "Martin Bjorklund"
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:27 PM
> On 08/27/2015 02:42 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >> The flat sea of YANG modules brings a different set of issues and I
> >> > am unsure what they are;
> >
> > This is main problem I have. What the heck is the problem we are
trying
> > to fix?
> >
>
> The first, but not only problem, is today's ~200 top level models
> (looking at current RFCs and I-Ds) with little apparent organization
or
> inter-relationship.

Lou

yes, but so what:-)

I do share Juergen's view here of what is the problem.  Earlier this
year, the focus was on presenting a coherent picture to the user and
Randy rightly pointed out that it took expert writers of NMS to bring
together data from mulitple modules to give the user a coherent display;
or it took expert writers of DDLs to produce modules that brought the
data together so that the writer of NMS have an easier task -  either
way, it needs experts and I do not see YANG being that different from
SMI in that regard.  Likely 'augments' will be used more so that YANG
will have more defined interrelationships in the DDL than SMI but not
enough to produce a coherent picture.

I do not see the benefit, in this or other regards, of placing YANG
modules in a tree, or in multiple trees.  What is the audience that will
benefit from that?

I do see the flat sea of modules as reflecting the way in which the IETF
works, in a loose federation, so that even within an Area, such as
Routing, you would not expect OSPF, say, to be au fait with MPLS, say;
so when they create their modules, they may not well dovetail as well as
they might but that is the way that the IETF is

Tom Petch

ps I have other concerns, but I have said enough about those lately so I
think about them some more

> Lou