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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:51:41AM -0700, Anees Shaikh wrote:
> 
> Regarding compatibility with existing models, I really don't agree at all
> that the existing RFC models should constrain what we do when trying to
> meet the requirements of people trying to build real systems that use YANG
> models.    With all respect to the authors of those few models (which we
> leverage considerably in our models), YANG models are software code, and
> should be treated as such IMO.  We don't say that software is "done" and
> can't change -- it evolves and improves over time, sometimes in
> non-backward-compatible ways.  And we don't issue a final version of
> software without considerable experience using and testing it in production.
>

Standards and software are not the same. The value of standards is
that they provide a stable basis. In other words, the value of
standards is that they do not change every other day. Yes, you can
rewrite standardized data models but the cost of doing so is high and
hence the benefit of rewriting something must be high. I do not see
this here - not even remotely.

/js

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