On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:39:08AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > > Juergen: > > This is good feedback on the L2 topology versus interface module. > > Stating "taking out all objects that are interface specific" is a bit broad, > but in principle specifics that belong to interfaces should be in the > interfaces module. The L2 specification is part of a virtual topology that > reflects interfaces, links, nodes, and terminating points. There will be > some references to the virtual principles. Some things chassis-id imply a > shared group resources (interfaces in a chassis) which creates a shared risk > group. The virtual topology needs to indicate which interfaces are within a > shared risk group. As Jie has mentioned, he will take into account your > comments in the next revision of the draft.
Susan, multiple overlapping objects marked config true I believe are asking for trouble. Read-only is a different story but when it comes to config true objects, I am rather concerned about multiple knobs to change the same underlying resource without a clear specification how conflicts are resolved (or whether access control can be bypassed through such repeated objects). So let me revise my statement to "taking out all config true objects that are interface specific". /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
