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

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Fri, 02 September 2016 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 2316012B00C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.922
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 WeCa_A9iH0OJ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2nam02on0111.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.38.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9886126B6D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=c+epRDlS+bx4QMu2F910ylLlNjrR43WHWN9Nw5YjJmA=; b=YIwUtHy+com/xQtZ3dLlRlsXTot1p298q+ksRQfSIbAjuyYMkB6FMK986ojh/xDD2hZlDaIebzRZKiwRaDGI2xKFA/BCqikZ8Odt84PzqsbzcIqrYH8O1nJGzNfZpDgjYDMG0+uQ9Y2OqIyv2ESxOYccKXKlD9+O4AeQl2KZ5WM=
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.149.11) by CY1PR0501MB1451.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.160.149.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.609.3; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:30:54 +0000
Received: from CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.149.11]) by CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.149.11]) with mapi id 15.01.0609.002; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:30:54 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 (until Sep 9, 2016)
Thread-Index: AQHR/8LivjdTqPfoxUWmbjRsB+ww7aBjI4mAgABLSQCAAnZNAIAABVCAgAB0BQA=
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:30:54 +0000
Message-ID: <95379285-DFC6-410C-A558-D7FDE66A856A@juniper.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <699C9AEE-6AB8-4B60-B1BC-E4D93B733E6A@nic.cz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.18.0.160709
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7dfce9be-b39a-4006-58d7-08d3d367a7f8
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0501MB1451; 6:ecQ9JetGsjMhpKRSeJPUx/y8T6tTSAAv0MWv7gmhtB4Z0/SZjyTJZHm1x+PB+ZL94Zzb9xzu+MkB+WcaKpHgu4GgO982zBlP1A4PLUzhB6Aco5j010jDcGXolKFHvCrtZTmJaw5V/Qx2eJEKTK3ti3NmIugUINkOKvSdbNQtGDKu3dDvBH633T92NheS89E5Gboj63SRh4ebF9R0GDr2UFs/mCpHaar3WaGUYJMNkIKijA/DxbA04uqQa9ymp4IoTGzoQHUXHvwa1mpdksiornjgV9b82T/tTWgc2Lmzl1m4dWjhOf3KA3YVrH86l8gmFjLoLI9cwCYh72YJm+dmLg==; 5:4ZVKSlZw/UHS7lcbqdKL5doh011J+v/UcScg1falJbZzI/VexPhy7L2J3dMj7vlAffdhzUbf9ks88BEIlQi1fHtkhwA0NBkR87a0BuKgUKOj/RvVLW560jiwteEY0yBQA21o5306ro+yBd4jfybrXA==; 24:l4E0RflqUCXBQAiG31jshu7gbQV94d4h7kbZFL+rXce30Cl/+zy1KLLi/NOY61R3U+Iv7HCazo2jFeHt4UlJqxjBflkr8VO65k+UCUDZ8Vs=; 7:g8+3kOEyomjrGcRwp09p3ukQeW/gUx2bUwTr19KfgaxFY241ItSgPXHa8Rs/jjJjLrE9X5V+rBOutgkAzxD+Tt43OO9zQk2FGGcHYuaqU3HDiQoFOXj+M1crn+ClI+PXv6qHnDXtjx8daAcx8G4zp1M3l7gXZLUs4lij0s4xXfMEGyMP9oHhTIXIx+8vEUdsjNuWvnoBIg/AEUS7mkyC+M4TIKMbWL61h+zuGG7UeekgDrn8nBS9eazSY8qSyRKo
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1451;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY1PR0501MB1451121443CE7ED7BBC2479BA5E50@CY1PR0501MB1451.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(18271650672692);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026); SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1451; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1451;
x-forefront-prvs: 00531FAC2C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(13464003)(189002)(377454003)(199003)(2900100001)(92566002)(2950100001)(54356999)(5002640100001)(97736004)(101416001)(33656002)(36756003)(5001770100001)(8676002)(5890100001)(50986999)(76176999)(11100500001)(87936001)(19580395003)(106116001)(230783001)(189998001)(5660300001)(105586002)(19580405001)(4001350100001)(99286002)(83506001)(3846002)(82746002)(6116002)(83716003)(122556002)(7846002)(2501003)(81156014)(7736002)(81166006)(4326007)(15975445007)(2906002)(305945005)(66066001)(102836003)(93886004)(106356001)(3660700001)(8936002)(10400500002)(77096005)(86362001)(68736007)(575784001)(3280700002)(586003)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0501MB1451; H:CY1PR0501MB1450.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <5A72310B446C4247B588106EE896F0D5@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Sep 2016 19:30:54.0363 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0501MB1451
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/kn6eO9rOiopEWJI_JpDBHGgPTmY>
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: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 19:30:58 -0000

It holds.  Some have FUD.  I do not.

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