On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So again it boils down to "bussiness" reasons - am i wrong? > > Yes, but not in the way you imply. >My company has implemented Yang/Netconf because our customers have asked us to >and because >when we did, they bought our equipment - not as you imply, >because we think its cool.
So your customer came to you and said they need you to implement I2RS using Yang/Netconf? It sounds to me like you had Yang/Netconf - customer may have asked for I2RS and in you suggested netconf/Yang. >There are a number of other major hardware vendors on this list that have done >the same. I think if >you poll most of those vendors, you will find that they >generally don't engineering resources to >things that people don't buy. >Also, Open Daylight has gone with Netconf/Yang/RestConf as one of >its primary interfaces - there are dozens of vendors working on that project >too. I think you are missing the point. What are the requirements? I will use netconf/yang when it makes sense. But using it because you can, or some project decided they want to use it is not an assertion that it meets the requirements. > As far as I can tell, no one has done any programmable interface based on > Forces there. Seriously? I know you decided to leave ForCES out of your book but you are not entitled to you facts. ForCES has been deployed and vetted. If you are interested and not being a troll we can talk. >That > seems to be an overwhelming number of implementations that have gone with > yang/netconf/restconf. So please explain how it meets the requirements for i2rs. > Well, at some point it does come down to running code and real, deployed > implementations, > right? Sure - so you want to show up at the next IETF meeting with your implementation of I2RS and i will show up with me and we can discuss around running code? For sure you havent deployed I2RS. So lets not talk about deployment. >As I said above, there are many real and significant implementations of >yang/netconf in the > marketplace *today*. Asking those things to be modified slightly isn't that > big of a deal in order to > address the requirements. Implementing a completely new protocol is. I am not > totally against new > protocols - its just that if we can achieve the goals > we have by hacking an existing implementation, > that makes better engineering and business sense. > I dont think we have much disagreements there. I am just not convinced that netconf/yang will require just a small surgery to deploy I2RS. Lets start with requirements, shall we? I may actually end up agreeing with you, who knows. cheers, jamal _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
