On 8/26/15, 2:40 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > >> > Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor >> > models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that >> > a group of people "really like it" some other way. >> >> I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a >> compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who >> have stated willingness (or even support) for change. I think having a >> major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner >> some notice. > >Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published >proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think >there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and >to redo them. Other than adding /device at the top, we are not obsoleting RFC 7223. The current device model keeps the interfaces configuration silo and merely augments it with a binding to the logical-networking-element. Thanks, Acee > >/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
