> On Jan 6, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> On this point: >> >> On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >> >>> And >>> should the interface reference not use a more specific type than >>> 'string’? >>>> Interface references can be many things, from standard naming we are >>>> familiar, e.g. ge-1/0/0.1 to a numerical value like 13276. Leaving it as >>>> string gives us most flexibility in that regards. >>> I disagree that the goal here is most flexibility. We do have an >>> interfaces data model in the IETF. Why are we avoiding to refer to it >>> here? >>> >> >> I think it would be helpful if you could be specific as to your >> concern. It is absolutely the case that the SNMP folk did an awful lot >> of work on managing interfaces. While I am not concerned about the form >> of the name, I wonder if your concern is around some of the semantics, >> but I can't tell. >> > > My question is why the model does not use interface-ref or > interface-state-ref defined in RFC 7223 but instead an opaque string > to refer to an interface. Have we thought about the design tradeoffs? > > My question is _not_ about how we deal with interface naming schemes, > that discussion took place when RFC 7223 was created.
In the example where the ACL is attached to the interface, we are using interface-ref, so replacing interface in the metadata, can be easily done. > > /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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
