[Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ??
Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 05 February 2015 10:52 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 D21FC1A1B0E
for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:52:04 -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 51pPWd1h_HVZ for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:52:03 -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 02A841A1B13
for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 02:52:00 -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 A45421801127
for <Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 11:51:58 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54D34B47.1050507@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:51:51 +0800
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64;
rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/qiYEr-soKU3NKtNVLuv0Yz1SvS4>
Subject: [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: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:52:05 -0000
Folks, I have what might be a naive question. People have told me that in Yang we want to separate functionality from technology, i.e. we will look at OAM, management, routing, signaling and traffic engineering as aggregate functions and build our tree based on that. Now if we are to model thing that are closely related e.g. MPLS OAM, signaling, routing and traffic engineering, does that mean that we have to work at separate pieces of the yang tree and repeat this for every piece of the technology? First, is this correctly understood or do I have to go back and discuss this again with the people proposing it? If it is correct why is it superior to what we did for SNMP, one MIB-module for each protocol? Are the decisions taken or is the jury still out? /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Loa Andersson
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Loa Andersson
- [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Loa Andersson
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? t.petch
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Dean Bogdanovic
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Thomas D. Nadeau
- Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] naive question ?? Qin Wu