Re: [netmod] Y34

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 04:51:28PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> 
>> Section 1.1 in 
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt
>> lists the goals of a generic model structure that will accommodate most
>> modern network devices. I guess you don’t agree that these are desirable?
>
>    o  a common schema to access data related to all aspects of a device
>
> This is why we produce standards. They are a common schema.
>
>    o  an extensible structure that makes it clear where additional
>       models or data should be fit (e.g., using YANG augmentation or
>       imports)
>
> This is why we have /interfaces. Interface related stuff goes here.
> It is easy to reference.

But it is only suitable for a single device with its set of
interfaces. So the ietf-interfaces module isn't broken but doesn't allow
for typical generalizations, e.g. a device comprising a number of
virtual devices, each with its own set of interfaces.

Lada

>
>    o  a place for including metadata that provides useful information
>       about the corresponding individual models, such as which
>       organization provides them, which vendors support them, or which
>       version of the model is deployed
>
> Not really sure what this means. YANG modules have meta data. A
> NETCONF or RESTCONF server exposes which data models it implements. A
> list of which vendor supports what is clearly outside the scope of
> IETF work.
>
>    o  a common infrastructure model layer on which higher layer service
>       models can be built, for example by specifying which models are
>       needed to provide the service
>
> Not sure what this means exactly but I also do not see why any of the
> existing RFCs breaks this.
>
>    o  an ability to express an instance of the structure consisting of
>       models that have been validated to work together (i.e., with
>       information about sources of the models, their versions, etc.), so
>       that operators can easily identify a set of models that is known
>       to be mutually consistent
>
> Not sure what this means exactly but YANG modules published by the
> IETF are supposed to work together. YANG 1.1 has even clearer rules
> what imports mean etc.
>
> Bottom line is that I do not get out of these bullets what is _broken_
> with the existing RFCs. I like to see text of the sort
>
>   - RFC 7223 is broken because ...
>   - RFC 7277 is broken because ...
>   [...]
>
> This text is not in section 1.1 as far as I can tell.
>
> Bottom line is that I do not understand why /interfaces is broken such
> that this needs to be redone while /device/interfaces is golden. What do
> we do if in two years some group of people find /device/network/interfaces
> a brilliant idea?
>
> /js
>
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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