Chris, nobody (I think) is having an issue with the lne and ni models. And it is great to hear that you have implemented them. However, please also understand that schema mount is a rather fundamental extension of the YANG technology and that people maintaining that technology and writing generic tools need to have this extension work together with other extensions we have been working on. For you, this may be irrelevant or not important and it may be 'divorced from your "get shit done" reality'. But then, please accept that there are other communities with different priorities.
I believe we will be more effective if we find a way forward that can work for everybody involved. Trying to convince other communities that their priorities are plain wrong is neither constructive nor does it lead to faster progress I think. /js On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:40:39AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Hi Juergen, > > I want to be understood so I'll reply again. It's not that I don't want > to involve myself in technical discussions, it's that I (and others) > think that what's being discussed now no longer matters to getting work > done. The work is good enough *now*. When we get to this point it > doesn't make sense for me to participate anymore, the problem is solved, > I need to work on other problems that aren't solved yet. > > We need models for VRFs and VMs, people are now arguing about having > totally different schema mounted at the same mount point based on the > datastore (?!?) and where exactly the meta-data should reside. It's > divorced from the "get shit done" reality. > > Thanks, > Chris. > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > > > OK, I accept that you do not care. Please also accept that others do > > care. And these people believe YANG library bis is needed. > > > > Since you do not want to read emails and involve yourself in > > discussions of technical details, I assume this is where our > > conversation stops. > > > > I tought you wanted to start a constructive conversation towards a > > resolution of the problem but it seems I misunderstood. > > > /js > > > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:06:06AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > >> > >> In the context of holding up this work, I don't care one iota about YANG > >> library bis, and it works just fine with NMDA AFAICT. > >> > >> We need models to get work done. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Chris. > >> > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes: > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:18:55AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Now it seems we are supposed to wait a bunch longer on yet other works > >> >> in progress for as near as I can tell (could be wrong here as I just > >> >> don't have time to read the very long email threads that netmod > >> >> generates) capturing meta-data in a cleaner way than another. This does > >> >> *not* seem like a reason to stall this work any further. > >> >> > >> > > >> > What is your interpretation of 'a bunch longer'? Or said differently, > >> > how much time do you think it will take to get the current schema > >> > mount approved (which has pending WG last call issues) and how much > >> > time would you find acceptable for a solution that also complies with > >> > NMDA and YANG library bis? I believe people are willing to give the > >> > later high priority. > >> > > >> > /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
