Re: [netmod] Y34

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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.

   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/>