Tom, I understand your concern with the complexity of the model. That said, as we progressed we encountered some vendors and some IETF RFC authors who requested that a particular feature of interest be included. We felt that we had to make features that were not implemented by two or more vendors a YANG feature to gain acceptance. Which is preferred in this case: augmentation to add features; deviation not-supported statements to remove features; or the use of feature statements? During early model development our YANG doctor advisor advocated using feature.
I read your post on "features - a Cartesian explosion" post. Note that in the case of the latest ietf-syslog model four of the features are nested such that they are not encountered unless a higher level feature is enabled. What would your preference be: - remove the feature statements and ask vendors to supply deviation statements for those leaves not implemented - remove all leaves conditioned by feature and ask vendors to supply annotated models with augmentation - leave things as they are It sounds like B would be your preference? Thanks, Clyde On 3/28/16, 10:09 AM, "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwil...@cisco.com> >To: <netmod@ietf.org> >Cc: "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com>; "t.petch" ><ie...@btconnect.com>; "Kiran Koushik Agrahara Sreenivasa (kkoushik)" ><kkous...@cisco.com> >Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 7:53 PM > >> Hi, >> >> This revision incorporates feedback from Martin Bjorklunk (19 >comments) and Tom Petch (10 comments). Thanks to both of you for your >valuable feedback! >> >> Regarding Tom's comment - "4.1 What a lot of features? Again, makes >things more complex, more error prone - are they all really needed?": We >started the draft two years ago and it has evolved from feedback >received from all of the folks that appear in the Acknowledgements >section. Please review the current draft where I believe that I address >all of your comments except possibly this one. The tradeoff is to leave >the feature specific functionality out of the draft and leave it to the >implementations to add back through augmentation. That said most of the >features that are called out have been implemented by at least two >vendors, but not all, leading to the feature designation. > >Clyde > >Yeeees; I did a separate post on the topic thinking that an implementor >might share my concerns about the large number of possible variations in >an implementation when there were a large number of features, that >perhaps there should be guidelines about it, but it did not get any >traction. It is one those issues where I think, in a year or two's >time, others might share my concern, but not yet:-(. > >I don't doubt that the variation exists and needs modelling, just that >such use of 'features' may have unfortunate consequences - but I have no >alternative suggestion. > >Tom Petch > >> Thanks, >> >> Clyde >> >> >> >> On 3/20/16, 8:10 AM, "netmod on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org" ><netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. >> >This draft is a work item of the NETCONF Data Modeling Language of >the IETF. >> > >> > Title : SYSLOG YANG Model >> > Authors : Clyde Wildes >> > Kiran Koushik >> > Filename : draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07.txt >> > Pages : 34 >> > Date : 2016-03-20 >> > >> >Abstract: >> > This document describes a data model for the Syslog protocol which >is >> > used to convey event notification messages. >> > >> > >> >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/ >> > >> >There's also a htmlized version available at: >> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07 >> > >> >A diff from the previous version is available at: >> >https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-07 >> > >> > >> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of >submission >> >until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> > >> >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >netmod mailing list >> >netmod@ietf.org >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
