Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Operational State Modeling

It is totally misconstrued and wrong to think it is being done for the looks. It is clearly outlined in the draft on ‘why?'(<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate/?include_text=1 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate/?include_text=1>>. 

We, the operator community, are requesting for a reason as outlined in the draft, to make it operationally efficient, when managing network @scale.

-sam

> On May 15, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	I don’t think the open config guys are asking for refactoring for purely aesthetic reasons. These guys operate some of the world’s largest networks with tens of thousands of devices, so I’d hope that their asking to move things around is in order to make interacting with those things at that scale better.
> 
> 	—Tom
> 
> 
>> On May 15, 2015:4:52 AM, at 4:52 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 09:13:37AM -0400, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>> 
>>> 	Speaking as an individual, while what Juergen says is true, that does not mean that existing models can never be refactored. 
>>> 
>> 
>> Refactoring for the sake of 'it looks nicer' (for some definition of
>> nice) likely does not meet the bar. We are talking about APIs here
>> with multiple independent implementations and applications sitting on
>> top of these APIs.
>> 
>> /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/>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord