IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ??

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 08 February 2015 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 4C8BB1A1AFB for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 02:26:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5T54T05po1bi for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 02:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10E0D1A005A for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 02:26:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (unknown [49.149.205.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 230B81801127; Sun, 8 Feb 2015 11:26:19 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54D739C4.6070705@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 18:26:12 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
References: <54D34B47.1050507@pi.nu> <D907FC42-80C2-48EB-B756-8F19195ECF39@lucidvision.com> <54D44C11.2080902@pi.nu> <A1325B22-16B7-4341-9DEA-ED8FEB9DA800@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <A1325B22-16B7-4341-9DEA-ED8FEB9DA800@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/i6Ez7o04GAK3KVOGSue4Hf-wkRk>
Cc: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ??
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 08 Feb 2015 10:26:25 -0000

Tom,

On 2015-02-07 00:32, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
> 	There is no such thing as an overall model; we have models that fit
> together.  The hope is that the output is a model, but assuming it will never
> evolve is very much an old way of thinking about how modern software engineering
> works. Artifacts are ephemeral and adapt/evolve or are sidelined quickly.

What is the exact difference between "overall model" and "models that
fit together", isn't the essence of "fitting together" some sort of
overall-ness?

This seems to be what e.g. the LIME charter says - "...it is the
intention that the generic information and data models produced by
the working group should be applicable to multiple layers and
technologies in a technology agnostic fashion..."

/Loa

>
> 	--Tom

-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@mail01.huawei.com
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa@pi.nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email