[Teas] Difference between the two YANG models
Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> Thu, 10 November 2016 15:21 UTC
Return-Path: <glen.kent@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500701297A5 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qOCnQNkJ0Wu7 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x242.google.com (mail-ua0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::242]) (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 1FB7A12975C for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x242.google.com with SMTP id 20so11133454uak.0 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TWBnuhXRJ0W9l+vk8t4HEIbzZHEFSMSdffx889BZ0+4=; b=0AABc7U3Hdg/N7Ohaj4YK2grR73SCvgBsF6CGKsG2cB+ZmDG6bJM5EZG2hmCek+I06 Ku+bwRrM8f34PLVHk/Py6jSejJflBl1oFD5JLYeUpdj1G2iPsnY99EU37nLsTVDAyOPn I11HINl+rORj5O6tQONog/Eryzh9yQWtSn/1mKWBk9tbmOd4YyWKh6umGabmD12sBbbi hcYFv68Tvi17UckkwbQS4k6U93IxGccCigap65+BL3opIv2GBF1XDM5+xF4ndFb0lkq5 l98enm8E+l6gk4N0/8NNK96LB1TBlSVPp9hN/Vtk+6NMeEfge0YveBcP16QFWMupt49n Dxxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TWBnuhXRJ0W9l+vk8t4HEIbzZHEFSMSdffx889BZ0+4=; b=fhlqtZXhP5rZyW4e2r+Mb/5j4qcvku/ow6W8mfAUILy8LhfUXlOkDwY9njbcJWcSqP u7IHo4qjW16fk4dPsaekvWZM6aLTAGjqhy+v7OiEEl86S6YXN+irA8HQBqoasifSqMtN y+pp2XNB4D5wS3V5xvkerushUg+8/SCeAD5c0gVNCYFi/9PGwfGJYCYaO3gzXPt9YssO Q6euUqCCOyyXP7zkIunYFibHKNHa1AgAyN+xxxMhS+MiNKFkK/47BWE1Fsu1R5vIcV5j apR7/EMaADIZ6TbYMVi9hF550v1UCwOkDUbjInyw3i57fETy/G7IK3w2wzAQEqvQyMg4 z/Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfN7DrlEN4EgbcVigUlgrMahMQm4MI+raPSefftsYjDbXCHFnStO+u1yzPskgaS2M8NFTpxwnVwk6FEkQ==
X-Received: by 10.176.64.196 with SMTP id i62mr3774453uad.70.1478791264087; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.79.9 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 07:21:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 20:51:03 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPLq3UMmEuYR6nunicYJAO4puzzK-gjSAkq3Q=6bPo=i1L7b+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c122c2efe34a20540f3eb38"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/gC1z04kZAR3zHQG0udsrBeI3JNc>
Subject: [Teas] Difference between the two YANG models
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 15:21:14 -0000
Hi, I would like to understand the difference between draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-06 and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-06? Is it that the former describes how a topology is described in the routers RIB while the latter describes an optical network at Layer 0 and Layer 1? Glen