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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 13:09 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 B257C1A89B9; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 f8abarrYiiV8; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20881A8946; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3142; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440594587; x=1441804187; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=TGdtS5vwdSq74FLlmaYv7/L1+sJDC9IfkUM6Mof6Lis=; b=lfcgk8X6uCjPHpM6XxGW67PPWVdRZJps7D2BE7oh8OpAJNIulEFjIurH jPnbgkcMShsfyH2tWZ+6lH08BBeSA+yqqVZjc+NFvNY+JM/Tyl8v/JGFt qiZbEWQeA5cX600vGArA8BY0nRJiMQTybV8Oy8SMe4NNJu+4rKCtQljRs k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ApBQD/ud1V/51dJa1dgxuBPQaDHcI8AhyBHDwQAQEBAQEBAYEKhCQBAQQjEUUQAgEIDgIIAgImAgICMBUQAgQBDQWILrNYlHsBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXgSKKOYRXMweCaYFDAQSVNwGHcYJPgjGBShWEHZB1g2omg35xgUiBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,416,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="182098054"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2015 13:09:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (xch-aln-011.cisco.com [173.36.7.21]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7QD9kCB006901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:09:46 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) by XCH-ALN-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:09:45 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (173.36.12.80) by xch-aln-011.cisco.com (173.36.7.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:09:45 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.223]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:09:45 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "tnadeau@lucidvision.com" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
Thread-Topic: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
Thread-Index: AQHQ2hI5G+RtR4J5pkqypvooyXOij54S3w4AgACDKQCAARvMgIAAXcaAgAkYyICAAD9QgP//73uAgABPhQCAABNggIAACX0A///NzIA=
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:09:44 +0000
Message-ID: <D203327E.2CAE1%acee@cisco.com>
References: <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com> <20150826.122600.1110046163132211535.mbj@tail-f.com> <19CCF9F5-87F1-4C41-8151-18AD36D98CE6@lucidvision.com> <20150826.140918.2163222167742824482.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150826.140918.2163222167742824482.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.37.102.29]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <7145A1B6A60D3E41A557D06060F4F652@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/F8GL6s9Uya-ZiB2afL1nkYhNFMs>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org" <draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@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 13:09:48 -0000


On 8/26/15, 8:09 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:

>Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>; wrote:
>> 
>> > 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?
>
>My point above was in reply to the statement that "we are not
>obsoleting RFC 7223" [because the change is so small?] - you would in
>fact be obsoleting the model in 7223.

There have been other mechanisms discussed to relocate YANG models.
Perhaps, one of these could be employed in lieu of obsoleting the existing
models. 

Thanks,
Acee 


>
>
>/martin