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

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