Re: [netmod] OpsState Direction Impact on Recommended IETF YANG Model Structure

[Rob Shakir <[e-mail]>]

Balazs,

> On 2 Aug, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I prefer a tight definition so even if we allow both 1) and 2)  we should state that other combinations e.g. trees spliting close to the leaves or a mix of 1) and 2) in the same module are not allowed (VERYYYY STRONGLY discouraged). 

What is the motivation for this very strongly discouraged statement? The problem I take with this is that you are not only getting zero consistency that will let a user determine how a model might look  (painful for those actually *using the models* rather than writing them - who are hugely under-represented in this discussion), but you’re also throwing out a bunch of models (both inside and outside of the IETF) at the same time.

Apologies to pick specifically on this email, but I have still yet to see any justification why anything other than a solution that is already being implemented is preferable to this WG other than it seeming like the WG doesn’t like the aesthetics of the modules in this case.

I am soon going to shut up on this topic, but it’s quite frankly lamentable that such a division is being created with no reasonable justification.

Note that the statement that Benoit/Lou/Kent made in Berlin related to applied config - the structure that is being objected to can be trivially implemented without those leaves if one wanted to.

r.