Acee,
This is going to become very interesting very quickly. Routing DT has decided
to define a container for oam-protocols. LIME has decided it wants to define a
generic YANG module for all OAM in draft-tissa-lime-yang-oam-model.
Which model does BFD augment? Or did you just kill the whole charter for LIME??
> On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Why doesn’t it help? In the next revision of the Routing YANG DT model,
> we’ve switched from including specific models to defining classes of
> models with identities. For example,
>
> grouping oam-protocols {
> container oam-protocols {
> list oam-protocol {
> key "type";
> leaf type {
> type identityref {
> base oam-protocol-type;
> }
> mandatory true;
> description
> "The Operations, Administration, and
>
>
> Maintenance (OAM) protocol type, e.g., BFD,
>
>
> TWAMP, CFM, etc.";
> }
> description
> "List of OAM protocols configured for a
>
>
> networking instance.";
> }
> description
> "Container for list of OAM protocols configured for a
>
>
> networking instance.";
> }
> description
> "Grouping for OAM protocols configured for a
>
>
> networking instance.";
> }
>
>
> Then the grouping is include the networking-instances. By doing this, the
> intent is that it would be evident as to where a particular model would be
> found.
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
