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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 26 August 2015 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 3BAED1AC7E8; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_BIZ=0.288, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 JF7_DqXV0GZl; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newdragon.webhostserver.biz (newdragon.webhostserver.biz [69.25.136.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095F71A901C; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:58:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:48539 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by newdragon.webhostserver.biz with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1ZUYPo-000740-98; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:58:48 +0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:58:46 -0400
Message-ID: <14f69a8f688.2818.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20150826102336.GA85182@elstar.local>
References: <55D3DDFC.2080107@labn.net> <20150819.112730.1689479932571514728.mbj@tail-f.com> <55D53A13.4080505@labn.net> <20150820.095853.255503105278478154.mbj@tail-f.com> <55DD2A43.8070300@labn.net> <20150826064030.GB84416@elstar.local> <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com> <20150826102336.GA85182@elstar.local>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 AquaMail/1.5.9.9 (build: 22000010)
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - newdragon.webhostserver.biz
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: newdragon.webhostserver.biz: authenticated_id: lberger@blabn.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/S43LAm9mI3RlqdlOI8MA201Dvsk>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, 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 10:58:54 -0000


On August 26, 2015 6:24:19 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder 
<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:41:26AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) 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. The
>> current device model keeps the interfaces configuration silo and merely
>> augments it with a binding to the logical-networking-element.
>>
>
> For the sake of clarity, these are the YANG data models that are
> published as Proposed Standard RFCs:
>
> - RFC 6022 NETCONF Monitoring
> - RFC 6536 NETCONF Access Control Model
> - RFC 7223 Interface Management
> - RFC 7277 IP Management
> - RFC 7317 System Management
> - RFC 7407 SNMP Configuration
>
> I see text in draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00 that seems to
> affect pretty much all of them.

Agreed. Although we're proposing reusing / rehoming them.

> I also do not see "augments it (RFC
> 7223) with a binding to the logical-networking-element" in the YANG
> fragment in draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00.
>

This omission has been pointed out before.  We need to fix that.

Lou

> /js
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>