> On 27 Aug 2015, at 17:30, Rob Shakir <r...@rob.sh> wrote: > > > Hi Lada, > > > Thanks for the reply. > On August 27, 2015 at 11:21:18, Ladislav Lhotka (lho...@nic.cz) wrote: > >> This one is actually easy to explain, exactly as the top-level container >> "interfaces" in ietf-interfaces: it is a courtesy to XML encoding. > Apologies, I’m not sure my question was clear enough. The point was, why do > we need a model that defines a structure for routing if one that defines a > structure for device is not useful?
We certainly need *some* structure, and since there was a requirement to support multiple routing instances, a list of them seems natural. In the past we also discussed the option of defining a common root for all configuration but we came to the conclusion that it is not needed. Choices have been made and in some cases an alternative design could certainly be usable, too. However, since some of the models already became RFCs, convincing technical argument are needed to throw them away and go back to square 1. And I also think that moving from / to /device isn’t of that category. Lada > > > Thanks, > r -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
