On Nov 7, 2013:8:49 AM, at 8:49 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Juergen > > On 11/7/13 6:53 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Russ White wrote: >>> >>>> If we have a device-centric model showing interfaces and so on, then >>> there's >>>> not a good way to express the learned IGP topology. Would we then >>> need a >>>> different IM - perhaps as part of an IGP-specific IM - to communicate >>> the >>>> topology learned via the IGP? Would that be preferable? >>> >>> Yes, you are going to need different network models for different >>> protocols, >>> services, etc. There's not going to be any way to combine such models >>> into a >>> "coherent whole." >>> >> >> Data models for different protocols such as OSPF or BGP have so far >> been done in WGs that care about those protocols and this has >> generally worked well as far as I can tell. We are now moving towards >> YANG models for configuration and state data and a general framework >> for YANG routing models has been defined in the NETMOD WG [1] (the >> next update of this document will go to WG last call). We expect that >> BGP, OSPF, ... specific extensions of this core routing model will be >> produced and we envision that this work takes place in the routing >> area, e.g., in WGs maintaining these routing protocols. Of course, >> we first need concrete proposals to start from. >> >> I think what I am saying is that (a) there is work going on outside of >> I2RS and we better avoid overlapping activities and (b) I like to >> remind you that work can be split and it is not necessary that I2RS >> creates all data models on its own. > > I2RS is not chartered to develop data models - it's chartered to develop > *information models*. Not that I agree or disagree, I am just pointing out > a subtle difference, which however has a practical impact: for example, > for the topology model, we first developed a yang data model which was > presented in the netmod WG. Then we also created a corresponding > information model which was presented in the i2rs WG. For the I2RS RIB > information model, there is a corresponding RIB yang data model, where we > worked with Lada and aligned it with [1]. We would want to present it at > the next IETF. > > So, there are no overlapping activities - the way the I2RS charter is > defined, the WG operates at a different level. It has yet to decide what > data modeling language should be adopted for i2rs, or whether data models > would be developed in the WG. Spot on. --Tom > > > >> >> /js > > > Thanks, > Jan > >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-11 >> >> -- >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
