On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Juergen, > > On 8/1/15, 2:51 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" > <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of > j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > >On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Andy, > >> > >> On 07/27/2015 12:58 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I don't think a standard for relocating subtrees would be worth it. > >> > I am not in favor of moving /interfaces or /system to a new location. > >> > That's not how YANG works. It only allows "obsolete and start over". > >> > > >> > I would suggest pursuing solutions that don't cause > >> > as much disruption and expense as possible. > >> > > >> > >> I think it would be really good to explore other, less "disruptive" > >> options. > >> > > > >I think the first step is to find out whether there is a problem worth > >to be fixed. Why are the RFCs in question broken? (Yes, I have read > >the openconfig IDs, > > Section 1.1 in > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt > lists the goals of a generic model structure that will accommodate most > modern network devices. I guess you don’t agree that these are desirable? > > The only objection I have to this draft is the insertion of a top-level root called "device". (Might as well be called "self"). There are no sibling nodes planned or intended for this node, so it serves as an extra document root. The well-specified XPath and YANG root (/) can be accessed by all protocol operations, exactly the same as a node called 'device'. The actual node name will depend on the RPC function (e.g. 'data' or 'config'). This is more than redundant however. It introduces a "super-module" into YANG that every other module is expected to augment. YANG is intended to be more loosely coupled than that. This introduces an extra node and namespace declaration in all protocol messages, increasing message sizes. It also assumes all existing YANG models will get rewritten to account for "/device" in all path and XPath expressions. This is highly disruptive to existing deployments. Also, multiple data models to edit the same thing causes lots of extra complexity in the server (supporting both old location and new location). IMO a resource directory approach is much more realistic. The /device tree can contain all the organized NP containers. Instead of all the actual data nodes, this tree just has pointers to the real location of the resource. (like 301 Moved Permanently) Thanks, > Acee > > > Andy > > >I listened to the virtual interim meetings, I > >assume you have read draft-bjorklund-netmod-openconfig-reply.) > > > > > > >Lets get the core of the openconfig argument on the table why the > >existing RFCs are flawed. > > > >/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 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
