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

The constraint to routing was to try and pick a plausibly sized set of work
to focus on, with the assumption it would
feed into other similar work as well.

Regards,
Alia

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> 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) (acee@cisco.com) 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"
> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> 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
> >><rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-yang-coord-bounces@ietf.org>>
>
> >> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani
> >><mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>>
> >> Date: Sunday, July 26, 2015 at 4:31 PM
> >> To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>
> >> Cc: Routing YANG
> >><rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org<mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>>, YANG Doctors
> >><yang-doctors@ietf.org<mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>>, Loa Andersson
> >><loa@pi.nu<mailto:loa@pi.nu>>
> >> 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
> >> mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
> >
> >
> >--
> >Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> >Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> >Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>
>