IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Sun, 26 July 2015 14:31 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 9FD301A891A; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:49 -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 g5UYNxPiXJg0; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) (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 8C07C1A8905; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbbh15 with SMTP id bh15so37484861pdb.1; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:48 -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=WaEN4vPlBiN0SciW+d48IEGGxFUJtbD9CTsmxeqr9cg=; b=sTPh+ZKGm1G/0ocoj5DWITe8uzgZykhwRRy07RFNbCbnyDrwAkqfsSxbvWVIOZdvGw QvTlcUY4A6/jG03ISZiUv6B2IFnajTqSNRHxtapnFNtbKnJb7XUHy9mWjihCIm5fC1GV lzyfwcGepCDGRBFfaZZdpYlAIcPv1KSN1COb3OPGUQK8IPIy+4FoX9CDYxm3q3A7dkr/ v5Hx2H0HNkvi4qWhPceJyv/Py3/F5QN7PZp0GIPw+ysRww7wm2yFHka4lpnktPtjJpdG ME5Mz7gGfpi0GCNrxTckKfm3qzQBRAIDcNnmdLAUncgLfNmU9HAWgqUADexrJW8tnv4d 3LJw==
X-Received: by 10.70.34.69 with SMTP id x5mr56660672pdi.28.1437921108025; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mahesh-m-62at.attlocal.net ([2602:306:cf77:df90:81e0:d2ae:edbc:115d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h12sm24504595pdk.77.2015.07.26.07.31.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_60693C36-09E0-4D05-AD35-7C272476EEFB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55B4AE36.5040203@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 07:31:45 -0700
Message-Id: <B0B12FA2-5510-4AD4-8964-DF21B8FAD6DA@gmail.com>
References: <55B207DD.8060502@pi.nu> <5436B667-6766-4F3D-902E-C4929D4A0240@gmail.com> <55B4AE36.5040203@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/M6_M9AzUEno5y__h1U3_8gCTzqI>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] yang models intended for the mpls wg
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:31:49 -0000

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
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email