IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] comment concerning draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model-00

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Thu, 28 May 2015 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005251A88D9 for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 tvbgjCH4qyax for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDDA1A88D5 for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by padbw4 with SMTP id bw4so31265695pad.0 for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=zdLxZcK4jGSAE/ipIK1qdeT6Ho7N/ZoYkEccK/qjZgg=; b=GV5iNXtNJBP+kFJMbmyx56SatHZNU0ds/1UHUEB2q8MWBDAhVpkWGrN1sJ2GQb2E5k ApkPjHUzK7ghQds0WQMrsH4tHfF4o8QuW/R+c7M33V95q/YCIWdWaBQdNZ1h/n5NsnI8 i6/drhiJsqx3XY2eZyrrBPW957gMuHUGOMDBuJwIoRx9X7lz5C5V64dT9PrrIFJkWRAO xnekD7BugnI+YvPcp4pveKLan3a3wD3e1wrcN5lGHxkkqDfWGU6xaFy6a9tP5N564HSb dC0OpSiI+58d1xinGRrZVSMPzrSjIr1uiqfO7zDHPA/By0h3OGgRTZCAX4eGaAI/QH2P oUJQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.133.200 with SMTP id pe8mr8631644pbb.133.1432844279332; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:302:1330:7197:4184:582e:ba8f? ([2001:420:302:1330:7197:4184:582e:ba8f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j7sm3253839pbq.35.2015.05.28.13.17.57 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 May 2015 13:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_341F9783-A6EE-427E-AFA9-6750B5D524E0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJK7Zq+9bFvuW79Cv5eg9E+189PW8zZ0aSHFCvPWSy-Pf=ksDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:18:22 -0700
Message-Id: <60EFF4AA-18BA-4B5B-87F4-4F5204A72A79@gmail.com>
References: <20150527122452.GC41087@elstar.local> <CAJK7ZqKHEYpD3nb8J5hjbex=NVhAAtURHWw5jGKxdrRWZe+sCw@mail.gmail.com> <D18B6A36.1F437%acee@cisco.com> <15B43214-AE84-49C0-A83B-9E4DB6184CC6@cisco.com> <CAJK7Zq+9bFvuW79Cv5eg9E+189PW8zZ0aSHFCvPWSy-Pf=ksDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anees Shaikh <aashaikh@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/ALp4QYZZ9FrwZGFU1jyB3jCcoqo>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <acee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] comment concerning draft-shaikh-rtgwg-policy-model-00
X-BeenThere: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <rtg-yang-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-yang-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:18:01 -0000

Aneesh,

When I look at a model to see where the ranges, defaults, min/max values can be defined, I rely on protocol definition and what the expectation is of the packet on the wire. 

Two examples come to mind. VLAN, as we know has a fixed range, and can be easily defined. Same for MPLS labels. The other example is of duplex on a Ethernet port. You can probably set the default to full duplex, and few folks will complain. If the protocol defines it and you can cite a section in the standard where the range/default is defined then you are covered. 

Where there is no clear standards defining ranges, defaults, min/max, I agree with you, it is best to keep it out of a standard model.

Cheers.

> On May 27, 2015, at 10:53 PM, Anees Shaikh <aashaikh@google.com> wrote:
> 
> That said, where it's easy to add validation, we have tried to include it, though ranges, defaults, min/max values, etc. get harder when trying to build something vendor-neutral.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email