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

Nadeau Thomas <> Wed, 26 August 2015 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8421C1A8AE1; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sl47q4GZIlZL; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6F4E1A89B8; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; t=1440588771; bh=xc86TPe2Xh4jzvnG/6DqGDBsWpRd80zABcmEmkQkQrk=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=bIurOe4kA1ev8D99sBo2hahDu83kGq78QN+EDvZ0KJltcTGBXjFr8Hvmo0Va/cdut UTnrnBYqt03B+U0iNKKK2zh3Pb2lc8JKIEPJqjOsHhrLsDmb8BDBH81twuAOc+8kvi K6vjrlQVwL91Fbipa6lpiQaih4IwIVcXfspdrQhk=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
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 <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:33:01 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20150826064030.GB84416@elstar.local> <>
To: Berger Lou <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=3 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=0 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 0, First 103, in=1144, out=0, spam=0 Known=true ip=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <>,,,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:33:56 -0000

> On Aug 26, 2015:5:51 AM, at 5:51 AM, Lou Berger <>; wrote:
> On August 26, 2015 2:42:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <>; 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.
> As Acee says, we have been trying very hard to minimize any impact to existing work even when the result is suboptimal. I also agree that  changing PS RFCs should not be done without serious consideration. That said, the IETF process does permit updates and replacements based on WG and IETF consensus -- which is not quite the same as your last statement.
> Lou

	[Speaking for myself]

	Is the resistance to this proposal because of the actual changes to structure, or is it a resistance to churn/change? And if we solved the latter by say relaxing the rules around how we progress models to PS, would this alleviate the concerns for the former?  The meta question I will ask is: is the existing RFC process adequate/sufficient for us to move forward on such a large scale with Yang models at the IETF?  Other organizations currently iterate on models using certain revision conventions (that are consistent with the rules we put out here) yet produce multiple versions of the same model within the same year.  As a matter of fact, multiple versions are allowed to coexist within a single implementation.  In stark contrast, the M.O. at the IETF has been to treat Yang models much like we did SNMP MIBs (or any other document here) thereby assuming that once it becomes an RFC, that it is largely set in concrete for many years to come.

>> /js
>> --
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list