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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Nadeau Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > On Aug 26, 2015:6:26 AM, at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> 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.
> > 
> > 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