On May 1, 2014:1:57 PM, at 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:47:29AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> This has been done a few times.
>> Most recently April 22:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01474.html
> 
> I should respond there, but this was one of the messages that prompted my
> question about data (operational state) vs. ephemeral config.
> 
> I don't believe we want to say "this is the module for monitoring the rib
> and now you can write to it".
> 
> IMO, I think we want multiple data stores for configuration for adding
> routes to the rib.
> 
> (I also thought the notification example was clear and didn't need further
> comment.)

        There was another important point in Andy's post: that its possible to 
model that with Yang.

> I don't see how standard I2RS data could use local config data unless it
>> was also standardized.
> 
> Basically, we want to make sure there is WG coordination on modules.
> If WG has a module and it makes sense for I2RS to use it/extend it, that's
> great when it makes sense.  Similarly, if we find the need to create an I2RS
> module for work covered by another WG, we want to make sure we leave
> as much re-usable infra for them as we can.

        For sure, but again, the point is that it is possible - and this could 
be a good starting point to move forward with rather than debating the theory 
of other models/etc... 

        --Tom

> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> _______________________________________________
> i2rs mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to