Jamal,
On 4/21/14, 8:10 AM, "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think Jan and others have explained why they think they can leverage >> the NC/RC/YANG technology to implement I2RS. There are tool >> and data model management requirements in addition to the protocol >> in order to have a workable solution. >> >> Unless the RIB data is one monolithic blob implemented without >> variation on every router, then issues such as modularity, conformance >> model, data lifecycle, distributed naming authority, data augmentation, >> and language extensibility are going to matter. >> > >So lets put all that in a requirement list somewhere and work around a gap >analysis. We have been discussing I2RS use cases and requirements for the past year or so. It is my understanding that at the last IETF there were two proposals presented that can meet the requirements: Forces and NC/RC/Y. The case has been made for each one of them - you made the case for Forces, and Andy and Dean made the case for NC/RC/Y. Now, Ed has asked the community to a vote for one of the two. Is my understanding correct or not? If my understanding is correct, why are we going back to square one? > >cheers, >Jamal Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
