On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 07:23:38PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > Hi Juergen, > > On this point: > > On 12/21/15 4:33 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > And > > should the interface reference not use a more specific type than > > 'string’? > >> Interface references can be many things, from standard naming we are > >> familiar, e.g. ge-1/0/0.1 to a numerical value like 13276. Leaving it as > >> string gives us most flexibility in that regards. > > I disagree that the goal here is most flexibility. We do have an > > interfaces data model in the IETF. Why are we avoiding to refer to it > > here? > > > > I think it would be helpful if you could be specific as to your > concern. It is absolutely the case that the SNMP folk did an awful lot > of work on managing interfaces. While I am not concerned about the form > of the name, I wonder if your concern is around some of the semantics, > but I can't tell. >
My question is why the model does not use interface-ref or interface-state-ref defined in RFC 7223 but instead an opaque string to refer to an interface. Have we thought about the design tradeoffs? My question is _not_ about how we deal with interface naming schemes, that discussion took place when RFC 7223 was created. /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
