Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Scope

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

I disagree that a routing design team can be in charge to do work
that fundamentally affects several standards-track RFCs that only
marginally are routing specific.

Yes, I agree a discussion needs to be held. Being old fashioned, I
believe the place to have this discussions that affects 'network
management going forward' is the OPS area.

/js

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:38:57AM +0100, Rob Shakir wrote:
> My assumption, and understanding of the ask that the ADs put to the DT, is that the routing design team should consider usability of YANG models from a routing perspective, and not constrain itself on essentially arbitrary IETF-boundaries.
> 
> If the output of the DT means that we need cross-area review to further its work as any form of standard, or document that the IETF would choose to commit to RFC - then engagement with the relevant area should be sought, of course.
> 
> I am very much opposed to considering that point parts of a solution should be set as constraints on anything that can be done relating to network management going forward.
> 
> I have a feeling that this opinion may not be aligned with that of the netmod working group - it needs to be openly discussed as to what the best technical solution is, rather than calling foul on ‘scope’ related discussions.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
> r.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 July 2015 at 20:50:41, Acee Lindem (acee) ([e-mail]) wrote:
> 
> Juergen,  
> 
> Since this E-mail thread is about the hierarchy and granularity of MPLS  
> models, I’m somewhat confused by your response. Nevertheless, I’ve updated  
> the subject line to correspond to your concern.  
> 
> Our assumption is that the Routing YANG design team will attempt to use  
> the existing models but will not be constrained by them. However, I agree  
> that any changes or augmentations to the existing NETMOD RFCs would need  
> to be reviewed in the NETMOD WG.  
> 
> Thanks,  
> Acee  
> 
> On 7/26/15, 3:24 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"  
> <[e-mail]> wrote:  
> 
> >Dear Acee,  
> >  
> >please note that the interfaces model plus the IP model plus the core  
> >system model plus the SNMP configuration model the IETF agreed on are  
> >defined in RFC 7223, RFC 7277, RFC 7317, and RFC 7407. All these RFCs  
> >were produced by the NETMOD working group. Work is starting in other  
> >SDOs to extend these models. Hence, I think any attempts to replace  
> >them with something different should not only be discussed on the  
> >NETMOD list but also seek support from the NETMOD working group.  
> >  
> >Note that https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord says:  
> >  
> > The rtg-yang-coord mailing list will provide a forum for  
> > coordination of the development of YANG models being worked on for  
> > Routing, in order to provide a consistent view to the NMS.  
> >  
> >It seems some of the content of draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00  
> >seems to leave the routing scope.  
> >  
> >/js  
> >  
> >On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 06:48:10PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:  
> >> Hi Mahesh,  
> >>  
> >> Please comment on  
> >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model/ as  
> >>this is the latest view of the design team.  
> >>  
> >> Thanks,  
> >> Acee  
> >>  
> >> From: Rtg-yang-coord  
> >><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  
> >> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani  
> >><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  
> >> Date: Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM  
> >> To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  
> >> Cc: Routing YANG  
> >><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, YANG Doctors  
> >><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Loa Andersson  
> >><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  
> >> Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg  
> >>  
> >> Lou,  
> >>  
> >> I like the approach taken in the draft  
> >>draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model. In particular, the approach  
> >>represented in this tree model makes sense to me.  
> >>  
> >>  
> >> +--rw mpls!  
> >> +--rw global  
> >> | ...  
> >> +--rw te-global-attributes  
> >> | ...  
> >> +--rw signaling-protocols  
> >> | ...  
> >> +--rw lsps  
> >> ...  
> >>  
> >>  
> >> However, by its own admission, the draft says:  
> >>  
> >>  
> >> This model does not aim to be feature complete (i.e., cover all  
> >> possible aspects or features of MPLS).  
> >>  
> >> My suggestion would be for the MPLS WG to take up the model structure  
> >>as represented above and to do a more complete work of including all  
> >>features of MPLS, e.g. GMPLS.  
> >>  
> >> Thanks.  
> >>  
> >> Mahesh Jethanandani  
> >> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >>  
> >  
> >> _______________________________________________  
> >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list  
> >> [e-mail]  
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord  
> >  
> >  
> >--  
> >Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH  
> >Phone: [phone] Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany  
> >Fax: [phone] <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord

> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord


-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>