On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:55:25AM +0000, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have just posted the general topology draft as a Working Group document.
> Thank you all for your support so far, including the topology design team,
> our working group chairs, Sue, Jeff, and our area director, Alia. There are
> a few minor updates over the previous version, mostly to bring this into
> alignment with IETF guidelines for YANG modules (such as ensuring
> descriptions for all the YANG nodes etc.). There have been no changes to the
> overall structure.
>
I like to repeat the question I asked in Dallas: Why is the generic
topology model split into two modules? This adds some significant
namespace overhead while I assume that most topology extensions need
both modules. My proposal is to merge ietf-network and
ietf-network-topology into a single module named ietf-network-topology.
I think some thought should also be given to simplify the references.
Right now, in order to refer to a termination point, I have to use a
triple (network-ref, node-ref, tp-ref). Have you considered using an
instance-identifier with require-instance instead? One option would be
to define proper typedefs such as
typedef tp-ref {
type instance-identifier { require-instance }
description
"An instance identifier refering to a termination point."
}
and then things can be collapsed. One would likely do the same for
other model elements, that is introduce typdefs for node-ref, link-ref
network-ref. This will make the tree much more compact.
/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
