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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Acee,

you pointed to a document that seems to go out of the scope of this
routing yang design team and since this document is called
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-* so I felt it is necessary to react.

/js

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 07:50:40PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) 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/>
> 

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