Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00

Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0151B2BBD; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 haUUOFyhpekj; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:35:21 -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 F07C51B2B87; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lucidvision.com; s=default; t=1440588857; bh=yi+pMUw/GEuLDSXalIKxeYNHADfUFG52Js0uf72qoBk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=TwmUL18qcsNDCEBuV77GUc/aEZi/gxuXONIt1xifOKWbx5nn1/JQwsNc6V3C8laY8 kQ2xPcII0QXp5OUET69Nv9MPPDTAXTRC6jHe76z1U1wZCE8IB3+JJVcjt9LY0tqYOE 0rI5yoIfF3fGiZRGmFzpnV4wJTGaFpdDKgbffdbc=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.255.148.181;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
From: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150826.122600.1110046163132211535.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:35:21 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <19CCF9F5-87F1-4C41-8151-18AD36D98CE6@lucidvision.com>
References: <55DD2A43.8070300@labn.net> <20150826064030.GB84416@elstar.local> <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com> <20150826.122600.1110046163132211535.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-Authenticated-User: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-ShareWhite: 50.255.148.181
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=4 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=0 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=50.255.148.181
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 0, First 103, in=1145, out=0, spam=0 Known=true ip=50.255.148.181
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/9jxqZ_8x-rDd7Lol7KhoZZm-3GM>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:35:23 -0000

> On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:
> 
> "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
>> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor
>>>>> models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that
>>>>> a group of people "really like it" some other way.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a
>>>> compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who
>>>> have stated willingness (or even support) for change.  I think having a
>>>> major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner
>>>> some notice.
>>> 
>>> Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published
>>> proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think
>>> there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and
>>> to redo them.
>> 
>> Other than adding /device at the top, we are not obsoleting RFC
>> 7223.
> 
> This doesn't make sense.  The YANG model is the contract.  You are
> proposing changing the contract.  The fact is that you will be
> obsoleting 7223 (and the other RFCs).  Existing devices and
> applications will have to change in order to handle this new top-level
> node (which will be in some other namespace I presume, unless your
> proposal is one gigantic monolithic model).
> 
> 
> /martin

	Again I will ask: why is this bad?  Obviously the implementation will have to 
evolve to the new models, but is this relatively static model where we really want to 
get to simply because some device vendors/server vendors find it a pain to iterate
models to support the latest versions?  Again, others have figured out how to do this
much more rapidly.  In the past we have seen what happens to things that cannot evolve
fast enough...

	—Tom



> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod