Hi Juergen, On 8/1/15, 2:51 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:46:49PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: >> Andy, >> >> On 07/27/2015 12:58 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I don't think a standard for relocating subtrees would be worth it. >> > I am not in favor of moving /interfaces or /system to a new location. >> > That's not how YANG works. It only allows "obsolete and start over". >> > >> > I would suggest pursuing solutions that don't cause >> > as much disruption and expense as possible. >> > >> >> I think it would be really good to explore other, less "disruptive" >> options. >> > >I think the first step is to find out whether there is a problem worth >to be fixed. Why are the RFCs in question broken? (Yes, I have read >the openconfig IDs, Section 1.1 in https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00.txt lists the goals of a generic model structure that will accommodate most modern network devices. I guess you don’t agree that these are desirable? Thanks, Acee >I listened to the virtual interim meetings, I >assume you have read draft-bjorklund-netmod-openconfig-reply.) > >Lets get the core of the openconfig argument on the table why the >existing RFCs are flawed. > >/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/> > >_______________________________________________ >netmod mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
