Hi Eric,
Sorry for the delay, just catching up after some PTO.
In short, this draft is defining extensions to RFC 7223 for common
interface based features that are mostly applicable to routers/switches.
The idea is that there is a set of fairly common interface level
features that several (perhaps most?) router vendors implement, and many
customers make use of for configuring their networks. Examples include
MTU configuration, or carrier delay (also sometimes called interface
hold time). If you are familiar with the OpenConfig interface models
(https://github.com/openconfig/public/tree/master/release) then you will
see that they also define some of the same leaves that are not defined
in RFC 7223.
Of course, as you say, each vendor could define their own proprietary
extensions to RFC 7223 to cover the specific features that they
implement. Alas, this would then require the operators to use hard
coded proprietary leaves/paths when trying to configure fairly standard
network configurations.
As such, I believe that for all the features covered by this draft there
is no direct equivalent in RFC 7223.
Thanks,
Rob
On 06/04/2016 14:57, Eric Gray wrote:
Apologies for responding so late to this message.
I only recently was apprised of this draft and I wanted to know if the
authors can explain what the draft offers that is not already easily
supported using RFC 7223?
If it is possible to support the capabilities explicitly targeted in
this draft, using the existing model, does it make sense to introduce
a new set of enhancements that make it possible to represent the same
concepts in two ways?
--
Eric
-----------------
Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Mon, 29
February 2016 23:07 UTCShow header
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=netmod&q=Wilton#>
The chairs were just reviewing notes and realized that this thread
never closed properly. Juergen has some concerns regarding realistic
milestones, that were never addressed. Robert, can you please try to
address Juergen’s concerns now? Also, there were only a two responses
before indicating willingness to review the draft as it progresses
(thanks Dan and Martin). Can others that support this draft and
willing to review this draft say so? Thanks, Netmod Chairs From:
netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org
<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org><mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net
<mailto:kwat...@juniper.net><mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>> Date:
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 11:48 AM To: "netmod@ietf.org
<mailto:netmod@ietf.org><mailto:netmod@ietf.org>" <netmod@ietf.org
<mailto:netmod@ietf.org><mailto:netmod@ietf.org>> Subject: [netmod]
call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as
NETMOD WG draft The minutes for IETF 94 show that there was in-room
support for adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.
The minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the
mailing list, which I am doing now. Should we move to adopt
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add
this to the WG charter as a milestone? Please comment by Tuesday,
December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge
whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.
Thanks, Kent
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
