Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 13 October 2015 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 87EB61B32FC; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 OXsVMG-o43hU; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:21:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 336351B46DE; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3524; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444749654; x=1445959254; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=80jwaM68mSdPypeimEECDoDNSlBdPsx6bWnp2x0SPiQ=; b=Eii3TyAfxaiq6jbBH2gl6tr5Tcdbu0u42RH84iwv9m6ZHp/gyuYzC6nl v6XuCJH5PHPRfrJu4yygRzKV/EBjE8tM+kJDF3rtt8820SqH8VLwtjrZi pHhVy+fw19mqDQWeGMGLShYu8+IKswhobFKIMqEpkUaLw5LMIo/LIfFX7 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B2AgD9Hx1W/4gNJK1egyZUYA4Gvg0BDYFaFwqCcoIKNUoCHIEkOBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEJwEBBAEBASAROgQHEAIBCBgCAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQBDQWILg2uAZNgAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBEwSBIopRhQ0HgmmBRQWWFgGNGZwHAR8BAUKEAnGFKiUcgQYBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,678,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="35305018"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Oct 2015 15:20:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t9DFKrac030734 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:20:53 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:20:39 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com ([173.37.102.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:20:39 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>, NETMOD WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
Thread-Index: AQHRAmpn2WDjXB7SH0yyXI3vdDB1jJ5jMMMAgAZwt4A=
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:20:39 +0000
Message-ID: <D2429721.34A0E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <7E24547E-B42B-46E2-AF76-F7639D61963F@nic.cz> <D23D3103.34500%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D23D3103.34500%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.199]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <AD7EE5AF7C2463469BBA14EC90B9E1B0@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/_Q-hwpGgl-bd8N0BJE_KSife3lc>
Cc: Routing YANG <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] rib-data-model and routing-cfg
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: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:24 -0000

Hi Lada, NETMOD, 

So I think we should move forward this ietf-rtg-cfg so that it can be
augmented and other work can move forward. We are still in disagreement
with respect to routing-instance/interface configuration.

    - We feel the IPv4/IPv6 interfaces should reference the
routing-instance in their config state. This is consistent with
draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt.
    - You feel that the routing-instance should have a list of leaf-ref’s
to the interface. You believe the leaf-ref provides a level of validation
due to the fact that references can be confined to routing-instance
references. However, heretofore, no models are referencing the interface
leaf-refs in the list.

Other than the Routing YANG Design Team having chosen the first option -
are there any other opinions?

Thanks,
Acee

On 10/9/15, 9:00 AM, "netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)"
<netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of acee@cisco.com>; wrote:

>Hi Lada, 
>I2RS is not chartered to do the base models. There are other routing
>models that reference routing-cfg and even in-progress implementations.
>
>On 10/9/15, 4:13 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
><netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz>; wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am sorry for cross-posting but I think it is high time to decide the
>>relationship between the data models in i2rs-rib-data-model and
>>netmod-routing-cfg I-Ds because they clearly target the same management
>>data in a router. I can see three possible scenarios:
>>
>>1. The i2rs-rib module will be modified to augment
>>ietf-routing/ietf-ipv[46]-unicast-routing.
>
>This would seem to be the obvious choice.
>
>>
>>2. The scope of ietf-routing will be changed so that it would address
>>only host routing and simple routers. The modelling work for advanced
>>routers will be done elsewhere.
>>
>>3. The work on netmod-routing-cfg will be stopped.
>
>A fourth option would be for me to take over ownership, move the work to
>the RTG WG, and we’d recruit some strong authors/reviewers from operators
>and other vendors (involving the ADs in selection).
>
>Thanks,
>Acee 
>
>
>>
>>Opinions?
>>
>>Thanks, Lada
>>
>>--
>>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>netmod mailing list
>>netmod@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>_______________________________________________
>netmod mailing list
>netmod@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod