On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Behcet: >> >> >> >> Can you tell me how the ONF Management and configuration protocol will >> interface with the routing system with all the requirements set forth by the >> architecture document? Please refer to version 2.0 architecture >> >> > > > Don't get me wrong. > > I am not speaking in favor of OF-Config. > > But the point is that a more realistic choice should be between these two > choices. >
Why? > If the study showed that OF-Config did not meet the requirements, that is > fine but I heard no one said that. > I wonder if the forces protocol meets these requirements? > > Only set of requirements i could find was what appears to be an abandoned draft here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfernando-i2rs-protocol-requirements-00 Not sure i agree with some of the parts but it is what i used to present. I havent seen anything on the model. Overall requirements need to be considered. You know what would be really useful is to show up at the next meeting with implementations of I2RS - perhaps a few demos and discuss what the lessons learnt are. cheers, jamal > > Behcet >> >> Or review to the presentation at IETF. If you can present these features >> in email or any substantial way, we will listen. In my observations, the >> ONF management protocol was designed for the ONF flows and not the >> information models required or the use case required. >> >> >> >> Sue Hares >> >> >> >> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya >> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:32 AM >> To: Dean Bogdanovic >> Cc: [email protected]; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim >> Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model >> >> >> >> Hi Dean, >> >> I attended i2rs session in London on this issue. >> >> >> My question is why ONF Management and Configuration protocol (OF-Config >> 1.2) was not on the table. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dean Bogdanovic <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jamal, >> >> Here are two criteria to be considered: >> 1. technical >> 2. commercial/business >> >> We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from >> business perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more sense. >> We already built the Junos model in YANG and >> have or are in process of building needed tools. Same goes for RESTCONF. >> We have NETCONF implemented in Junos and are working on RESTCONF >> implementation. >> Many carriers adopted or are adopting NETCONF/YANG, are looking into >> RESTCONF as well, so this looks like a low hanging fruit from business >> perspective. >> >> Looking at technical aspect, unless there is a very compelling reason (and >> there might be, but I'm not aware of it), don't see reason to switch from >> RESTCONF and YANG. >> We can find out down the line that RESTCONF/YANG was the wrong way to go, >> but that can be always changed. From my perspective it looks right today. >> >> Just to be clear, I vote for RESTCONF/YANG adoption for i2rs. >> >> Dean >> >> >> On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Ok, since nobody is saying anything i'll bite. >> > How would you like for this discussion to proceed? >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear I2RSers, >> >> >> >> At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation >> >> regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport >> >> protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use of Yang and (NetConf >> >> or >> >> RestConf) (unclear). >> >> >> > >> > And i believe the view, as correctly presented by you, is for folks to >> > go back >> > and make educated decisions by actually getting knowledgeable about >> > the different views presented. "Consensus" that you described above >> > to me looked like a pageant popularity contest not based on anything >> > technical ("who likes contestant in the blue shirt? please cheer for >> > them"). >> > >> > In my opinion i dont think the requirements are clear. >> > >> > Will that get the crickets stop chirping? >> > >> > cheers, >> > jamal >> > >> >> Before coming to a final consensus, we'd like to give people adequate >> >> time >> >> to review source material, marshall arguments and discuss on the >> >> mailing >> >> list. To this end, we're asking that interested parties do just this >> >> over >> >> the course of the next ~two weeks. Following that period, on 4/28, >> >> we'll be >> >> initiating a consensus call that will last an additional two weeks, >> >> with the >> >> aim of converging modeling language / protocol by Friday, 5/9. >> >> >> >> The consensus call should also generate proposals for any material >> >> changes >> >> required to the underlying protocols. These proposals in turn will >> >> form the >> >> basis for a later draft including gap analysis and said changes. Those >> >> strongly in favor of one protocol over another should be prepared to >> >> contribute to this analysis. >> >> >> >> >> >> best, >> >> >> >> -ed >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> i2rs mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > i2rs mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> >> > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
