Hi Juergen, >> > I am talking about the modularity of the base model, I do not see how >> > the cited thread relates to this. >> >> Among the vendors, ace-eth, ace-ipv4 and ace-ipv6 are always supported. >>I appreciate your input, but we did this design choice as design team >>and went forward with it. Also, the YANG models are not set in stone. I >>definitely see models evolving. > >My main concern is that we need to get the extensibility of the model >right. One way to make sure we achieved this goal is to actually treat >everything as an extension of the core model (this forces us to get >the extensibility right). This is essentially what we did with the >routing data model and the interfaces data model.
While I agree that your approach worked with the routing and interfaces data models, we as a design team decided to include what we thought was core functionality and then also allow extensibility on top of it. At least folks in Cisco and Brocade liked this approach better. Thanks Kiran > >/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/> > >_______________________________________________ >yang-doctors mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
