IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Tue, 28 July 2015 16:13 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 20CA51ACD96; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:24 -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 kiZB7-Dykdac; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com (mail-pd0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]) (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 4E83D1ACD8A; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbbh15 with SMTP id bh15so73109588pdb.1; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:22 -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=PGPyItELJkWYIk5wmdEd+RAl7iSyUiJx3FJJdemAHp4=; b=bCUv61T4K6RxE37dIvONs3Gg4fq99vEI/nqySU4fcCXPJ6Qf8VMJCeVKyXOiYJAY6p V+RBpoZrInNgcTVO6YEzBRIMCopXISUeEAWHzSY1wzSlYecCPYT0xYG9DqAH7QmcHPF0 0FOuERwbvFzUiMw29IpgaVEyvFWi5blwTbmaKZkmJIFoTg+ibROp7SNt1alWVMwEHDpG 2A6FrZOYvN5DoRRwSXFboMjPM3+B38TSzsHMqhG6rHr41SoWssTl47xBvus6Xo7Ra0Il 0mYHXBUaPHiaRYTah8R70GydZVVTvTKHixTb4sJ3YzQqmFXiCOfKMgXxxVnAhx38JkYR mviw==
X-Received: by 10.70.0.71 with SMTP id 7mr82402922pdc.157.1438100001944; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.24.137.122] ([128.107.241.165]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ni14sm31233055pdb.11.2015.07.28.09.13.19 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_842BFC84-3787-4BB2-8907-73A3542E9FA0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D8CFA7E-4E24-4FC2-BB69-31F4F436ACFC@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 09:13:21 -0700
Message-Id: <D6BC554B-5349-4DA5-A4A3-228F3D8855DA@gmail.com>
References: <D1DAB06D.298C6%acee@cisco.com> <20150726204927.GA17784@elstar.local> <B2F97D6D-C316-4176-83E3-E08E6F553E9D@gmail.com> <D1DBB3C4.2991F%acee@cisco.com> <022BA705-5EA2-4C4D-B012-EF2946F5F523@gmail.com> <6D8CFA7E-4E24-4FC2-BB69-31F4F436ACFC@cisco.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/m2mNn-T2uqYJPncRRz0gwAF4nvY>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Scope
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, 28 Jul 2015 16:13:24 -0000

Acee,

> On Jul 28, 2015, at 7:07 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> The networking-instance is used to instantiate separate layer-3 or layer-2 domains as opposed to protocol domains. For example, in many implementations, a networking-instance would correspond to a VRF or a Virtual Switch Instance (VSI). Hence, it would not make sense to define a separate networking-instance for MPLS since it is only one piece of a layer-3 domain. 

Ok.

Similarly, could oam-protocols, control-plane-protocols, system-management, networking-services be identityrefs also? mpls could be part of tunneling-protocols that would include protocols such as gre. 

My concern with the model as it is structured, is its size. Not in terms of code size (because you are using groupings judiciously) but the ultimate size of the tree. I expect the device model to lay the framework for other models to augment the model. In addition, groupings cannot be augmented and if there is a new system-management definition tomorrow, the current structure does not allow for that to be added.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email