No, but I did try to address at least a partial list in one of the use cases draft. I think this would really entail building a data model for "the entity officially known as the rib." Is the current YANG model a good solution to the question? It seems like we should answer that question before writing another one.
I suspect we'll need either need to extend an existing ones to get where we want? I think the right place to start might be to explicitly include the objects that need to be manipulated in each use case. Maybe we need a "standard set" of things that need to be included in each use case? Thoughts? :-) Russ <>< [email protected] [email protected] On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Scott, > >> Why do we need to go beyond defining an interface to the RIB to make your >> use case work? > > I am talking precise about that definition of RIB interface. Not how > the RIB works in given vendor of network element. That is > implementation detail. > > Basically a list of values one can write or read to/from RIB. Have you > seen any document with such list yet ? > > Cheers, > R. > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
