Hi Juergen, Skipping down...
On 1/19/16 5:48 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > While we can have a lengthy debate about terminology, I think more > important is to get functionality right. Agree. We are arguing over labels that aren't generally meant for humans ANYWAY. >>> I am talking about the modularity of the base model, I do not see how >>> the cited thread relates to this. >> Among the vendors, ace-eth, ace-ipv4 and ace-ipv6 are always supported. I >> appreciate your input, but we did this design choice as design team and went >> forward with it. Also, the YANG models are not set in stone. I definitely >> see models evolving. > My main concern is that we need to get the extensibility of the model > right. One way to make sure we achieved this goal is to actually treat > everything as an extension of the core model (this forces us to get > the extensibility right). This is essentially what we did with the > routing data model and the interfaces data model. > > While I agree I am also becoming concerned that we may be going down a rat hole from which we may not return. The above thread snippets have lost so much context that one cannot divine what it is we are arguing over. While a design team certainly does not represent consensus, can we please at least argue over what it is we are supposed to be arguing over? With regard to this model, I could imagine innumerable ways to represent an access list. The deference due the people who wrote this stuff out is at least to recognize that. If you are going to propose an alternative at this point, please do it the old fashion way: send text. Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
