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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 2B6521ACD7C; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 p5ARJKQ1M730; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31501A90D2; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 05:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.43]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71BFA1AE049C; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:09:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:09:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20150826.140918.2163222167742824482.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <19CCF9F5-87F1-4C41-8151-18AD36D98CE6@lucidvision.com>
References: <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com> <20150826.122600.1110046163132211535.mbj@tail-f.com> <19CCF9F5-87F1-4C41-8151-18AD36D98CE6@lucidvision.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/qbJGru7Q-NtNJjLsalB97Yallm0>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org, draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model@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 12:09:23 -0000

Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>; wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>;
> > wrote:
> > 
> > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>; 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.
> > 
> > This doesn't make sense.  The YANG model is the contract.  You are
> > proposing changing the contract.  The fact is that you will be
> > obsoleting 7223 (and the other RFCs).  Existing devices and
> > applications will have to change in order to handle this new top-level
> > node (which will be in some other namespace I presume, unless your
> > proposal is one gigantic monolithic model).
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> 
> 	Again I will ask: why is this bad?

My point above was in reply to the statement that "we are not
obsoleting RFC 7223" [because the change is so small?] - you would in
fact be obsoleting the model in 7223.


/martin