Tom, I took an action item in the Netmod review of the item-syslog model to ask you if you are ok with the resulting draft published as a result Martin's and your comments.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07 Diffs from v6 to v7: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt Please comment. Thanks, Clyde On 4/2/16, 4:54 AM, "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: >---- Original Message ----- >From: "Kiran Koushik Agrahara Sreenivasa (kkoushik)" ><kkous...@cisco.com> >Cc: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>; <netmod@ietf.org> >Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:55 PM > >Hi Andy > >We did solicit and incorporate feature support from at least 5+ vendors >for this model. >The model represents a minimal common feature set. They are also >hierarchical as Clyde noted below. > >Thanks >Kiran > ><tp> > >If I remember my mathematical teminology, I prefer a highest common >factor, to which augmentations can be applied, whereas others prefer a >lowest common denominator, partitioned by features. > >I do not doubt that everything you model is there in implementations but >I prefer a widely, preferably universal, core which can then be added >to. > >It is a judgement call rather than an engineering one, a matter of >philosophy even, so I leave it up to rough consensus. > >Tom Petch > >From: Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com<mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>> >Date: Monday, March 28, 2016 at 3:32 PM >To: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" ><cwil...@cisco.com<mailto:cwil...@cisco.com>> >Cc: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>, >"netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" ><netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>, Kiran Koushik Agrahara >Sreenivasa <kkous...@cisco.com<mailto:kkous...@cisco.com>> >Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt > >On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Clyde Wildes (cwildes) ><cwil...@cisco.com<mailto:cwil...@cisco.com>> wrote: >Tom, > >I understand your concern with the complexity of the model. That said, >as we progressed we encountered some vendors and some IETF RFC authors >who requested that a particular feature of interest be included. We felt >that we had to make features that were not implemented by two or more >vendors a YANG feature to gain acceptance. Which is preferred in this >case: augmentation to add features; deviation not-supported statements >to remove features; or the use of feature statements? During early model >development our YANG doctor advisor advocated using feature. > >I read your post on "features - a Cartesian explosion" post. Note that >in the case of the latest ietf-syslog model four of the features are >nested such that they are not encountered unless a higher level feature >is enabled. > >What would your preference be: >- remove the feature statements and ask vendors to supply deviation >statements for those leaves not implemented >- remove all leaves conditioned by feature and ask vendors to supply >annotated models with augmentation >- leave things as they are > >It sounds like B would be your preference? > > >I agree with Tom. >IMO if the functionality is not supported by at least 2 vendors then >remove it from the standard. The vendor can write a module >that augments the base module. > > > >Thanks, > >Clyde > > > >Andy > > > > > >On 3/28/16, 10:09 AM, "t.petch" ><ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: > >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" ><cwil...@cisco.com<mailto:cwil...@cisco.com>> >>To: <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> >>Cc: "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com<mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>; >"t.petch" >><ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>>; "Kiran Koushik >Agrahara Sreenivasa (kkoushik)" >><kkous...@cisco.com<mailto:kkous...@cisco.com>> >>Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 7:53 PM >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This revision incorporates feedback from Martin Bjorklunk (19 >>comments) and Tom Petch (10 comments). Thanks to both of you for your >>valuable feedback! >>> >>> Regarding Tom's comment - "4.1 What a lot of features? Again, makes >>things more complex, more error prone - are they all really needed?": >We >>started the draft two years ago and it has evolved from feedback >>received from all of the folks that appear in the Acknowledgements >>section. Please review the current draft where I believe that I address >>all of your comments except possibly this one. The tradeoff is to leave >>the feature specific functionality out of the draft and leave it to the >>implementations to add back through augmentation. That said most of the >>features that are called out have been implemented by at least two >>vendors, but not all, leading to the feature designation. >> >>Clyde >> >>Yeeees; I did a separate post on the topic thinking that an implementor >>might share my concerns about the large number of possible variations >in >>an implementation when there were a large number of features, that >>perhaps there should be guidelines about it, but it did not get any >>traction. It is one those issues where I think, in a year or two's >>time, others might share my concern, but not yet:-(. >> >>I don't doubt that the variation exists and needs modelling, just that >>such use of 'features' may have unfortunate consequences - but I have >no >>alternative suggestion. >> >>Tom Petch >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Clyde >>> >>> >>> >>> On 3/20/16, 8:10 AM, "netmod on behalf of >internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>" >><netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of >internet-dra...@ietf.org<mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >>directories. >>> >This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of >>the IETF. >>> > >>> > Title : SYSLOG YANG Model >>> > Authors : Clyde Wildes >>> > Kiran Koushik >>> > Filename : draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt >>> > Pages : 34 >>> > Date : 2016-03-20 >>> > >>> >Abstract: >>> > This document describes a data model for the Syslog protocol >which >>is >>> > used to convey event notification messages. >>> > >>> > >>> >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/ >>> > >>> >There's also a htmlized version available at: >>> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07 >>> > >>> >A diff from the previous version is available at: >>> >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07 >>> > >>> > >>> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >>submission >>> >until the htmlized version and diff are available at >tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org>. >>> > >>> >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >>> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>> > >>> >_______________________________________________ >>> >netmod mailing list >>> >netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> >>> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >> >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
