Dean: Could you let me know what tool chains you consider necessary for RESTCONF/Yang?
Do you start with informational models in the Yang/RESTCONF world? Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dean Bogdanovic Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 9:18 AM To: Jamal Hadi Salim Cc: [email protected]; Edward Crabbe Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model 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
