Juergen: 

I suggest the UML as an Informational model is quick and easy to read.  Most
generated prototypes can enforce interoperability you wish for.  If not, the
UML to code tool is just broken.  The steps are: 

UML--> Data Model (yang/forces) --> code    

I think the UML is readable. Please comment on my UML drawings that I sent
at the beginning of this post.  If you wish a power point of the UML so you
can edit it, I'll send one.  At the Yang step, Andy assures me it is
readable so debugging the tool should be useful.  I was answering the
performance issue question with the iterative code.  I think this does
provide what you require. 

Can you tell me where your experience states this is a misstep?

Sue 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:40 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Nitin Bahadur'; 'Joel Halpern Direct'; 'Mach Chen';
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Some comments on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-01

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 03:22:00PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> Juergen:
> 
> Thanks for the high quality and pragmatic response.  Yes, I did mean 
> UML Class diagrams.  As the teens say "my bad".
> 
> As to the tools and code generation:
> During my days of writing protocol software or managing protocol 
> software writers, I found it often took 3+ rewrites to get efficient code
after
> working good.   If tools create inefficient code but working code - at
least
> a prototype to test against comes up quickly.  If tools improve the 
> prototype may get closer and the re-writes less.

But we are talking about standardizing data models we want to interoperate.
You can't apply iterative code development to this.
 
> As to descending into detail with UML:  that's actually a plus for me.  
> The purpose behind UML is to quicken the pace of the process from high 
> level agreement to DM.  We can standardize the high level and then use 
> the UML to provide quicken layers of agreement.

As usual, the hard is finding agreement, not so much the format. A format
that people do not read carefully may help in the sense that you get less
reviews and thus you believe you were faster (but you might have just moved
the difficult parts of the agreement finding process to a later stage). As
such, a format that increases the chances of getting a fair number of
substantial reviews of key parties should be the target.

/js

-- 
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

Reply via email to