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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 26 August 2015 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.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 4BC841ACE46; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 J2_vC5zOERgc; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C92FF1ACE27; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 02:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1902; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440582089; x=1441791689; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=wKJpWLGMSv0WoZ9r7HxXygL739vWqoMaBtfD+OomvWM=; b=L9LyHjicxsieoyn3vXMmvo4x3Rc8PelqgpjZYbZ0GBnPhZKp0c8q8aZC KIvt1tUCtFoq5MWOdcAuS6ft5KxA2RFjlEwAdBYL6ShxrODmZ4vgBugRE VWTIAqWBm8vgrCAVQrZ2c0kFcrUU9wxuPCb2l+VGuUbYngyBlzN5xoQMF Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ApBQBPiN1V/4oNJK1aA4MbVGkGgx26SYF0hX8CHIEfORMBAQEBAQEBgQqEJAEBBCMRRQ4CAgEIDgIIAgImAgICGRcVEAIEAQ0FiC6zK5R/AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwSBHoo5hFcYCxAHEoJXgUMFlTcBikCCMYFKFYQdlF8mg35xgUiBBAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,415,1437436800"; d="scan'208";a="182039793"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2015 09:41:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7Q9fS71010836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:41:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:41:27 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (173.37.183.77) by xch-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:41:27 -0500
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.223]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 04:41:26 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Subject: Re: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
Thread-Topic: [netmod] questions about draft-rtgyangdt-rtgwg-device-model-00
Thread-Index: AQHQ2hI5G+RtR4J5pkqypvooyXOij54S3w4AgACDKQCAARvMgIAAXcaAgAkYyICAAD9QgP//73uA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:41:26 +0000
Message-ID: <D203014F.2CA9C%acee@cisco.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <20150826064030.GB84416@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [173.36.7.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <F580309E152B6B4B89056C2CDEA154E2@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/zUm34TJl3oAjTbBXYN-U3hg5ljs>
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
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 09:41:30 -0000


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.

Thanks, 
Acee




>
>/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/>