Hello Martin,
We are interested in some specific functionality provided by RFC 8343 yang
model.
So we derivied the yang model from RFC 8343, modified it and gave module name ,
prefix with some modifications like "ucpe-interfaces",
but in description we kept the reference to original RFC(in future we wil
modify the description to say that it is not original RFC 8343 yang module.)
IMHO it is wrong to not presice in the description(reference) of the module /
RFC that was we find usefull in our work.
>Clearly unacceptable. Unclear why a ucpe can't implement
ietf-interfaces from RFC 8343.
I will try to give some ideas here.
1. uCPE phy interface has "vPorts" to witch "vLinks are assigned". "vLinks
"connect" the phy interface with "vPort" of vswitch. Thus we may add to the
derieved from RFC 8343 module the list of "vPorts" for each phy interface.
example with 1 phy interface:
+-------------------------------------
| UCPE
+------------+
| |------vPort
1---vlink---(vport_sw)vswitch(vport_sw)--vlink---.....----WAN
LAN----| Phy |------vPort 2
| interface |
+-------------+
|
+----------------------------------------------
2. If we include the yang module from the RFC 8343 to the set of yang models by
default it goes in the root of config mode. i.e:
EXAMPLE:
config t
interfaces interface....
When we have a parent module we need to place the RFC 8343 module to under the
parent module (like in the draft draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04).
Hence the RFC8343 may be modified to add the augment statement(as it is dome
in draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04) to put the "interfaces interface" under the
parent module like
EXAMPLE:
conifg t
ucpe "ucpe X" interfaces interface...
______________
Dmytro SHYTYI
---- On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:31:31 +0200 Martin Bjorklund
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote ----
tom petch <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin
>
> I am wondering how much you know about a module that says
> WG List: <mailto:mailto:[email protected]>
> Editor: Martin Bjorklund
> <mailto:mailto:[email protected]>";
>
> The module is
> module ietf-ucpe-interfaces {
> in
> draft-shytyi-opsawg-vysm-04
Haha! I don't know anything about it.
> The author appears to have taken RFC8343, changed the module and prefix
> name (but not the Editor) and added, at the top level,
> augment "/ietf-vysm:ucpe" {
> (ucpe also appears in this I-D). I have commented on the OPSAWG list
> about this approach not being one I have seen before and the response is
> that the yang validator is fine with it.
>
> Thoughts?
Clearly unacceptable. Unclear why a ucpe can't implement
ietf-interfaces from 8343.
> An earlier version of this module had
> import tailf-ncs
> which also had me wondering.
Hmm.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
mailto:[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
