Forwarded Anees Shaikh's email, with permission. Thanks Anees. I believe it's useful info for NETMOD.
Regards, Benoit -------- Forwarded Message -------- hi Benoit, we will be publishing the primitives after we complete our internal review -- it's in progress. There's nothing secret about it, or any intention on our part to not 'put our cards on the table.' As we've said publicly, at Google we are planning to use gRPC for example, while others in OpenConfig have expressed their intention to use protocols such as Thrift, and still others will use NETCONF, or their own REST-based protocol. OpenConfig is not prescribing or endorsing any specific protocol -- we only insist that the data models be common. ... On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com <mailto:bcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: From the preliminary meeting minutes Benoit: The two suggested solutions. They are based on NETCONF/RESTCONF. Are they using it for other protocols? Aneesh: We are using other protocols. Will share primitives. Benoit: If the solution is for NETCONF/RESTCONF, will it work for other protocols. Rob: If the solution is mappable for NETCONF/RESTCONF, would it be mappable for another protocol. Benoit: YANG is currently not protocol agnostic. Currently, it is tied to NETCONF/RESTCONF. Benoit: If the solution is for NETCONF/RESTCONF, is that acceptable? Rob: No. The solution has to be more general. Christian: Is the intersection of NETCONF/RESTCONF good enough for the other protocols. Rob mentioned during the call something such as: "we would share the expectations of the protocol". Please follow up and share the primitives or those expectations. However, in the end, I believe it would be favorable to everybody if you would play all your cards on the table, and directly share the protocols you plan on using. Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
