On Mar 23, 2013 10:16 PM, "Andy Bierman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >..... > > But it means we're back to square one --any off box process that wants > > to work with the local RIB on a wide variety of boxes must poke through > > the documentation (almost never complete, by intention) of each of those > > boxes, and build an internal data model that can be used for that > > individual box. This lays the problem of data modeling squarely on the > > shoulders of the application developer. > > > > I'd prefer a least common denominator set of things we know we need to > > build a RIB (not a forwarding table a RIB), from the start, and then > > build where we see more stuff we can do in the future. > > > > Start small and grow up, don't start big and try to fill out the details > > --IMHO. > > > This is an important point. > Do you want a framework that is filled in by vendors > (and possibly SDOs) that may be different on each platform, > or do you want a common API that provides basic functionality > that all vendors must implement? Or both?
[Alia] A common API that provides basic functionality that all vendors must implement. Having it extensible for different features is desirable. > > It's too early to be reviewing YANG modules for I2RS > but it would be good to know the direction the API is headed. [Alia] Absolutely too early, but not for information models. > > > Russ > > Andy > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
