Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg

Hi Lada, 

On 11/25/15, 3:26 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>  
>> I think using the more generic term, “networking”, at the top would be
>> preferable. What we need is an instance abstraction that covers L3
>
>Hmm, shall we also rename "routing-protocol" to "networking-protocol"?
>Seriously, I am concerned that we are drifting away from the original
>focus of the data model. We should keep in mind it needs to remain
>usable by hosts (even constrained ones) and simple routers because there
>is no other model such devices could use.

In the Routing YANG design team, we are now considering a different
approach which would satisfy this requirement and move the elements the of
ietf-routing. There is no need to rename if we can make this work.

Thanks,
Acee

>
>> (e.g., virtual router or VRF), L2 (e.g., Virtual Switch Instance), or
>> a combination (some EVPN, TRILL, etc). This could be used in lieu of
>> each L2 model creating their own top separate list of instances. For
>> example, the networking-instance could be augmented with both the VPLS
>> and VPWS instances in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang-00.
>>
>> Some YANG models ascribe greatness from the start, others achieve
>> greatness through refinement, while still others have greatness thrust
>> upon them. routing-cfg would fall into the last category…
>
>If it ever gets finished.
>
>Lada
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee 
>>
>> On 11/24/15, 4:24 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> We had a lot of good discussions at IETF 94 with respect to the
>>>> ietf-routing and how it could be augmented in the future to support
>>>>I2RS.
>>>> These discussions are ongoing.
>>>> 
>>>> One current change that I would like to propose is to change the base
>>>> instance container from routing-instance to networking-instance.
>>>
>>>Is the idea to simply rename the "routing-instance" container to
>>>"networking-instance"?
>>>
>>>Then we would have:
>>>
>>>   +--rw routing
>>>      +--rw networking-instance
>>>
>>>Would you keep the top-level name "routing"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>/martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This
>>>> would provide an instance definition that could be augmented for L2
>>>> protocols and service functionality as well as L3. It is also
>>>>consistent
>>>> with the term used in both
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-01.txt and
>>>> 
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-rtgwg-network-instance-01.txt.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Acee 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>> 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>
>-- 
>Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C