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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 10:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 1D4331ABD3D; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 s7HW2gUZ82As; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D491A92EF; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.43]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E9AE1AE049C; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:26:01 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:26:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20150826.122600.1110046163132211535.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: acee@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com>
References: <55DD2A43.8070300@labn.net> <20150826064030.GB84416@elstar.local> <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/DTXsfmvEmCNacCjSRViKCBCAqkM>
Cc: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org, netmod@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 10:26:04 -0000

"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