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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 26 August 2015 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 E3EAA1A21C3; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 AnhlWrEgyYFz; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64A931A1AB8; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE7313CD; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.220]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id tU_fvHg_6vOs; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF8F20080; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:43 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o1YYa6434i4Y; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C189120063; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id D7A9C365971C; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:23:37 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
Message-ID: <20150826102336.GA85182@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org" <draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/T00hgsNAKhASn8MBBpNLvivCHnw>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:18:50 -0700
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org" <draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 10:23:48 -0000

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. 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.

/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/>