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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 ED77D1A0AFE for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 pxEvttgVPOU3 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08421A1B00 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laba3 with SMTP id a3so126925890lab.1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nndxeFnk5/vLCWir+CpbkRUL8s9WKBko4ibA8omo/AI=; b=iOhs+ho2H9E4CIz9Icj7JiuQyQBfiYgVE1eQ96yCyWE48MV98D3QCoGcFU/M8dWsdT uHR3Hf8h3pDQOWJS5KG0hg1MMmTbF7GKLIqTPzvhLnPoWTvFoGT1mnJwjL+9Ke5WgL6z ZOyd5E+oYUOztmxsAlT3g7fOxaxGqM09RFTD5y2x6QfT/l7iAz1YqJ3db5OXNaSsh90W lNXa9+L2Btfa/fs1jVfpf2JTQbIQ1Es0ZE/mJu66Wl3S6OtCJL+zBIFfdshnSVA5Fvua Iz3YpSAEqMZUkXLxLxVd1oNjU8BUQByBlK5aoQWrZ5c9rZB1ByB7hQ2UeNX44Y5g0y5G 7XWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn4cD+3HAeY5Jx37FH2xDtMc6SouiYWsL00I+PHr+XVjf16/PzlZwF3U0Wtyvy/xtt+aj1Y
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.154.106 with SMTP id vn10mr436769lbb.38.1440618484109; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.200.104 with HTTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55DE1471.40305@labn.net>
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> <D203327E.2CAE1%acee@cisco.com> <ED14E3B4-450F-4E33-A786-8767E55C7002@lucidvision.com> <55DE1471.40305@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:48:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQmvsHVug2v+NLaxw=tYE3pwZ5yeNwZd=KDANbAVmQsQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122af2a00b042051e3c21ca
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/gA3Wif610DAChWgxpIW36RVcxIQ>
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 19:48:09 -0000

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; wrote:

> Tom,
>
> On 8/26/2015 9:34 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
> > ...
> >       This is exactly what I want to get on the table.
>
> So taking a step back, perhaps there is a YANG language question at the
> heart of this discussion.  I think we're seeing cases where the same
> data model is useful in multiple cases/places.  The example I like to
> use (although I know others disagree with the example) is the case of
> PE/CE config information, where some of the exact same information may
> end up on the CE and PE devices as well as the L3 service model.  In
> this case we'd like a core model to be "included" (or "linked") into two
> larger models.  Importantly, I'm referring to doing this as part of
> model definition - not at server/device run time.  This is important for
> the pre-provisioning case.
>
> It is my understanding that there is no way to really do this in a
> general and extensible way (including allowing for augmentations)
> today.  If there was such support, I do think we'd be saying that we'd
> like the existing models to support this mechanism rather than our
> current proposal of being relocated .
>
>
If you are talking about schema reuse, then YANG has groupings as the
solution.
But it seems you are talking about YANG Mount -- the ability to have a
subtree on server X represent a different subtree on server Y.  On the
controller
the 'mount point' is not the actual data root (as Martin has explained).
On the NE, the data models are in their real location  On the controller
they are not.

This can be done with an 'anyxml' hack today.
It would be better to have real YANG support for this very basic
use-case for YANG Mount.




> Lou
> (BTW this is my opinion, not speaking for the DT.)
>
>

Andy


>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>