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

Acee,

Juergen’s concerns aside, I am curious about the intent of the design. I see the device model as a abstract model that allows for plenty of extensions. Since the discussion started with MPLS, I am going to focus on that part for now. 

BTW, the TOC in the html version of the draft have no hyper links.

I see that the mpls model in the draft to be very similar to the one in the OC MPLS draft. Is the idea that the device model is trying to define everything under a device tree? I would have thought that the device model would define networking-instance as a 'type identityref’ which would form a base identity, and from which specific networking-instance types would be derived, such as mpls - much like what the interfaces model does for all types of interfaces. That will allow the device model to be a fairly compact model, leaving the feature specific models to be developed elsewhere.

Thanks.

> On Jul 26, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> 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"
>> <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/>
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/>

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com