Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Scope
Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Mon, 27 July 2015 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 E6F451B2D0D;
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 nMe1lMOxKumQ; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [64.71.170.115])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 237CB1B2D01;
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lucidvision.com;
s=default; t=1438002384;
bh=o9ESVBLmlQEHfQS0zu+QAnGjsLbLVCKAPPM7Nw6JdhM=;
h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To;
b=WWQtmfmDTY2nqQjt1Qv2yv+NprAow6mL4Y/Uj4FwufBv8P2LyDpZGc0C9IKMt9To2
YR3NDEbo9FYVGH8a4IK00p7F6DatoNldGkSks/sQAS2eITIcrfYYdy+gh4skkEWk/U
MDMTRMnkHhCnRDzZFwekCQd2yGlmayr7McMs5jRs=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=209.37.255.2;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="Apple-Mail=_D3DCABC1-88FB-4EFE-A13B-FED679827964"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\))
From: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.55b60a41.3b25a484.755b@piccolo.local>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 06:06:49 -0700
Message-Id: <FD8CBA1C-AF7D-47EE-A469-A6361EF00D8F@lucidvision.com>
References: <D1DAB06D.298C6%acee@cisco.com>
<etPan.55b60a41.3b25a484.755b@piccolo.local>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102)
X-Authenticated-User: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=2 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=0 Surbl=0
Catch=0 r=0 ip=209.37.255.2
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 0, First 48, in=23, out=0,
spam=0 Known=true ip=209.37.255.2
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/p_IhzzMNAfCoe5-L0Je1i7iTG1s>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>,
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>,
Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>,
YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Berger Lou <lberger@labn.net>,
"Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <acee@cisco.com>, 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: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 13:07:10 -0000
Speaking as NETMOD co-chair: This is precisely why we are doing this effort and the others in the way that we are - across areas, with a wide enough group of people involved to hopefully cover the real requirements not just say server implementations, or client implementations - we want to cover those and operators who would using them. So if one of the outputs of a DT is to conclude that the existing standard models are insufficient, then we will work to revise them. The DTs should strive to recycle what is there as much as possible, but if in the end it is insufficient there is no other option. So in summary: The DT should not believe that it is constrained to using only existing models as-is, —Tom > On Jul 27, 2015:3:38 AM, at 3:38 AM, Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh> wrote: > > My assumption, and understanding of the ask that the ADs put to the DT, is that the routing design team should consider usability of YANG models from a routing perspective, and not constrain itself on essentially arbitrary IETF-boundaries. > > If the output of the DT means that we need cross-area review to further its work as any form of standard, or document that the IETF would choose to commit to RFC - then engagement with the relevant area should be sought, of course. > > I am very much opposed to considering that point parts of a solution should be set as constraints on anything that can be done relating to network management going forward. > > I have a feeling that this opinion may not be aligned with that of the netmod working group - it needs to be openly discussed as to what the best technical solution is, rather than calling foul on ‘scope’ related discussions. > > Thanks for your consideration, > r. > > > > > > On 26 July 2015 at 20:50:41, Acee Lindem (acee) (acee@cisco.com <mailto:acee@cisco.com>) 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 <mailto: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 <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/ <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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:lberger@labn.net <mailto:lberger@labn.net>>> >> >> Cc: Routing YANG >> >><rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org><mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>>>, YANG Doctors >> >><yang-doctors@ietf.org <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org><mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>>>, Loa Andersson >> >><loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu><mailto: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><mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <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/ <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list >> Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord> > > > _______________________________________________ > Rtg-yang-coord mailing list > Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org <mailto:Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>
- [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Scope Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Rob Shakir
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Nadeau Thomas
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [yang-doctors] Routing YANG … Benoit Claise
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [yang-doctors] Routing YANG … Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Lou Berger
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] [yang-doctors] Routing YANG … Nadeau Thomas
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Routing YANG Design Team Sco… Lou Berger