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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 09:41:26AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <[e-mail]> 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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>