> On 02 Sep 2016, at 21:30, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > It holds. Some have FUD. I do not.
Then you probably already know what the solution is going to be. I don't. Anyway, if the consensus was to split config and state data into separate modules, we would have to tell all module developers who build upon the core routing model to split their augments into config and state parts as well, because otherwise the change to ietf-routing would be useless. Lada > > K. > > > On 9/2/16, 4:35 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Stephane, > > if we do any changes to the core routing module, then I am afraid all > modules that depend on it will have to follow suit. In particular, if we put > config and state data into separate modules, protocol modules should do the > same. > > I don't like the idea of putting the core routing model and all work that > depends on it on hold until we reach a decision regarding opstate. So, *if* > the separation of config and state data gives a reasonable guarantee that at > least the config part will be compatible with the ultimate opstate solution > (whatever it is), it IMO makes sense to do it. But I am not even sure that > the premise holds. > > Lada > >> On 02 Sep 2016, at 10:16, <[email protected]> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As this model is a base for multiple routing modules, it would be good to >> align the op-state modeling between this model and the existing routing >> related modules (so we can also close the work on multiple routing yang >> models). >> So if core routing model uses foo:/foo foo:/foo-state, do we keep this >> modeling also for our protocol models and close the work ? >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Stephane >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juergen >> Schoenwaelder >> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 20:41 >> To: Kent Watsen >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-23 >> (until Sep 9, 2016) >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:11:14PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: >>> [as a contributor] >>> >>> My only comment on this draft is that I’d prefer it if the “routing-state” >>> tree were moved into another YANG module, so that it could be more easily >>> deprecated when the opstate solution comes. I suggested this before, with >>> regards to rfc6087bis Section 5.23, but that thread seemed to have petered >>> out, but now here we are and my opinion remains the same. >>> >> >> We already have foo:/foo /foo:foo-state modules and while we can now start a >> series of foo:/foo and foo-state:/foo-state modules in the hope that this >> will eventually 'easier' in the future, it might also be that we just create >> more variation and confusion. >> >> /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 >> >> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu >> ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou >> falsifie. Merci. >> >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and >> delete this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been >> modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
