Stefano, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. Looks as actually we are in sync. I just hope that the authors of the YANG Model draft will be in sync with us as well.
Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com -----Original Message----- From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:53 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> Cc: draft-ietf-spring-sr-y...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; Michael Gorokhovsky <michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com> Subject: Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop Sasha, > On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:42 PM, Alexander Vainshtein > <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> wrote: > > Stefano, > I respectfully disagree. > > From my POV YANG data models (same as MIBs before them) are supposed to > provide a comprehensive list of configurable parameters that impact operation > of a protocol within the limits defined by the corresponding protocol spec. Far be it from me to question yang benefits... ;-) it’s just that, from a protocol definition perspective, I won’t assume a given choice for management/configuration so that people can then chose snmp-mibs, yang or whatever comes next. Where I agree with you is on the need for yang models to support the sr/ldp interop if the target is to be yang-capable on all aspects of protocol implementations. s. > > My 2c, > Sasha > > Office: +972-39266302 > Cell: +972-549266302 > Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Previdi (sprevidi) [mailto:sprev...@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:17 PM > To: Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> > Cc: draft-ietf-spring-sr-y...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org; Michael > Gorokhovsky <michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com> > Subject: Re: [spring] A question regarding mode of SR/LDP interop > > >> On Feb 23, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Alexander Vainshtein >> <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> I would like to point to what looks to me as inconsistency between the >> current (-05) version of the SR YANG Data Model draft and the latest (-06) >> version of the Segment Routing Interop with LDP draft. >> >> The following text has been added to the latter: >> >> Section 2 describes the co-existence of SR with other MPLS Control >> >> Plane. Section 3 documents a method to migrate from LDP to >> SR-based >> >> MPLS tunneling. Section 4 documents the interworking between SR >> and >> >> LDP in the case of non-homogeneous deployment. Section 5 describes >> >> how a partial SR deployment can be used to provide SR benefits to >> >> LDP-based traffic including a possible application of SR in the >> >> context of inter-domain MPLS use-cases. >> >> >> >> Typically, an implementation will allow an operator to select >> >> (through configuration) which of the described modes of SR and LDP >> >> co-existence to use. >> >> >> To the best of my understanding, there is no match for the highlighted >> configuration parameter in the former document. > > > well, from an SR perspective, “through configuration” is not limited to > YANG... > > s. > > >> (This is expected since such a parameter has not been mentioned in the >> previous (-05) version of the former). >> >> I hope the next version of the YANG Model draft will take care of that. >> >> Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha >> >> Office: +972-39266302 >> Cell: +972-549266302 >> Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> spring mailing list >> spring@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
