On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:38:39AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 08:24:51PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
This is where I think we're getting stuck. There is some vagueness between
operational state that can be modified and ephemeral configuration.
Are you
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:57:48AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 07:38:39AM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 08:24:51PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
This is where I think we're getting stuck. There is some vagueness
between
] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
..snip
1) Why do you think that only the RIB matters in the long run (Short
run = RIB + BGP) -
[Andy] Why do you think I said that I don't see anything special about
I2RS at all. Editing operational state would probably work the same for
other data
; Dean Bogdanovic; Russ
White; Jan Medved (jmedved); Joel M. Halpern
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
..snip
1) Why do you think that only the RIB matters in the long run (Short
run = RIB + BGP) -
[Andy] Why do you think I said that I don't see anything special
; Alia Atlas;
Nitin Bahadur; Jeffrey Haas
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Susan Hares sha...@ndzh.com wrote:
Andy:
I started using UML to do the information models because Adrian Farrel and
Alia Atlas encouraged it to replace RBNF
; 'Jeffrey
Haas'; adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Andy:
I started using UML to do the information models because Adrian Farrel and
Alia Atlas encouraged it to replace RBNF. I think that the yang/netconf
models are still mining
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:12:44PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-13.txt
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show. What YANG does not have is a way of
correlating the two trees
See also Lada's reply.
What kind of correlation are you looking
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
To: ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: e...@google.com; i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:08 PM
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
snip
In practice, this means that the YANG model comes in twin sets, one
of
read-write
Hi Dean,
On 23 Apr 2014, at 19:20, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
Does the WG see a need for i2rs to provide mechanism for persistent changes?
Whilst it would be nice from an i2rs view to say “no, we can clearly make these
changes via NETCONF”, from my perspective, it is very
Bierman;
Jamal Hadi Salim; Russ White; i2rs@ietf.org; Jan Medved (jmedved); Dean
Bogdanovic; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
I see a different flaw just from the first few pages and looking at the
conclusion.
Sorry - didnt have time to look at the whole
On 24 Apr 2014, at 11:17, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
To: ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: e...@google.com; i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:08 PM
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
snip
In practice, this
Thanks for posting on that draft. Google was kind to find it for me.
For other folks, Robert is talking about his draft here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varga-netconf-exi-capability-01
I thought ive heard claims that CPUs are fast enough, dont worry
and this draft's problem statement is (to
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
I thought I2RS is starting out focusing on 1 client and 1 agent.
Dont think so.
Network locking across devices is out of scope.
I have same
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 06:12:15AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
Thanks for posting on that draft. Google was kind to find it for me.
For other folks, Robert is talking about his draft here:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varga-netconf-exi-capability-01
I thought ive heard claims that
-
From: Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:50 PM
Subject: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Dear I2RSers,
At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation
regarding selection of both modeling language
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
To: ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: e...@google.com; i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:08 PM
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
snip
In practice, this means that the YANG model
the necessary work has been
done.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:50 PM
Subject: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
___
i2rs mailing
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
To: ie...@btconnect.com
Cc: e...@google.com; i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:12 PM
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Martin Bjorklund m...@tail-f.com
To:
++ (and NETCONF++), once the necessary work has been
done.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
To: i2rs@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:50 PM
Subject: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
Is it, though, the right approach for I2RS? I see the rationale of I2RS
as being able to take a holistic view of the routing system, not one
based on where the information is coming from (a view that may make
sense when building boxes or installing them).
: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:08 PM
To: Edward Crabbe; i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
YANG (with NETCONF) is designed for writing configuration and reading
everything else, and does an excellent
: Friday, April 11, 2014 6:50 PM
Subject: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Dear I2RSers,
At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation
regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport
protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use
t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
YANG (with NETCONF) is designed for writing configuration and reading
everything else, and does an excellent job at it. Trouble is, for me,
that configuration doesn't mean what I think of it as; it means, in the
YANG context, what you might put in through
Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:10:16PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
The assumption:
I am assuming that the information models are not a waste of time. Jeff
Haas' comment was isn't having information models and data models a
duplication of effort.
First
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:26:58PM -0700, ramki Krishnan wrote:
It would be good to have an empirical performance analysis of
Netconf vs FORCES; this would substantiate performance advantages,
if any, of either protocol. The following reference provides a
reasonable empirical performance
Dear all,
I've been spending the last 2 hours reading that full email thread, up
to this time.
Not sure to which email I should reply, so here am I, top posting.
+ 1 on YANG for the data model language.
What counts at the end of the day is a consistent data model language
for configuration,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:36:44AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
It may not be the primary deciding criterion but it will
certainly be a big one given the high-throughput desires we have for I2RS.
Do you see a whole BGP
So I understand the practical implication of a WG being behind schedule
and by no means do i want to contribute to that.
One approach that Tom Petch had suggested is to focus on use cases.
The idea of what model/protocol is used can be going on in parallel. Input
from the use cases is useful to
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
Sorry Andy - trying to catchup with the threads (and busy elsewhere at
the moment)
so fast forwarding to this email. I will try to come back later and answer
each
of your questions probably in a separate email
To
Since ForCES name space is per-lfb-class. So that the collision problem
is mostly in the naming of the lfb classes. (Some care is needed in the
naming of data types and such, but it is pretty easy to do that in a
colission avoiding fashion. The harder problem, which applies equally
to
, 2014 7:15 AM
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; ramki Krishnan; Joel M. Halpern; Andy Bierman; Jamal
Hadi Salim; Russ White; i2rs@ietf.org; Jan Medved (jmedved); Dean Bogdanovic;
Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
I see a different flaw just from the first few pages
: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
I see a different flaw just from the first few pages and looking at the
conclusion.
Sorry - didnt have time to look at the whole thing.
The paper picks a model entity of about 90% strings (theres one int
iirc).
I am not sure what that was supposed
Jamal,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:21:14AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
It may not be the primary deciding criterion but it will
certainly be a big one given the high-throughput desires we have for I2RS.
Do you see a
Joel,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:28:13AM -0400, Joel Halpern Direct wrote:
Since ForCES name space is per-lfb-class. So that the collision
problem is mostly in the naming of the lfb classes. (Some care is
needed in the naming of data types and such, but it is pretty easy
to do that in a
Benoit,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:43:35PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
The least we can say is that the WG is late.
Indeed. :-)
I observe that after 1 year and 3 months after the WG creation, we
still don't have the problem statement/architecture/requirements:
I've been told that we should
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jeffrey Haas jh...@pfrc.org wrote:
Joel,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:28:13AM -0400, Joel Halpern Direct wrote:
Since ForCES name space is per-lfb-class. So that the collision
problem is mostly in the naming of the lfb classes. (Some care is
needed in the
On 04/21/2014 09:02 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
The binary encoding of FORCES may help with speed.
It was asserted elsewhere (copied below) that this may only be 3-5% of a
speed improvement. (I had thought I recalled a discussion in netmod(?) at
one point of a BER format for YANG, but my google-fu
Just an FYI. Rex an I have a protocol buffer mapping to Yang RFC
proposal.
pals
On 4/22/14 9:18 AM, Robert Varga n...@hq.sk wrote:
On 04/21/2014 09:02 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
The binary encoding of FORCES may help with speed.
It was asserted elsewhere (copied below) that this may only be
On Apr 22, 2014, at 6:43 AM, Benoit Claise bcla...@cisco.com wrote:
Dear all,
I've been spending the last 2 hours reading that full email thread, up to
this time.
Not sure to which email I should reply, so here am I, top posting.
+ 1 on YANG for the data model language.
What
:46 PM
To: Russ White
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim; Dean Bogdanovic; Jan
Medved (jmedved); Joel M. Halpern
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
And the basic premise of I2RS
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com wrote:
On 4/19/14, 5:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
Both throughput and latency are meaningless from the standardization point
of view - they both largely depend on the underlying system.
I am sorry, I
On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.comwrote:
On 4/19/14, 5:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net
wrote:
It comes down how many transactions are required? Will you updated
Jamal,
Majority of the people are using today NC/RC/YA (because it is available) and
it provides necessary functionality. Many people, including myself, didn't find
any issues so far with it and we believe it is the right choice.
If you remember, at the beginning I mentioned two criteria,
Hi Jan,
You said:
Both throughput and latency are meaningless from the standardization point
of view - they both largely depend on the underlying system.
Speaking for NC/Y implementations that I¹ve been involved with, the
throughput of the Netconf Agent itself is much larger than the rest of
Sigh - ok, I guess we need to address this elephant in the room.
Feel free to change the subject line.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
It looks to me like the market already has decided.
NETCONF started in 2002 and was first published as an RFC in 2004.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
I think Jan and others have explained why they think they can leverage
the NC/RC/YANG technology to implement I2RS. There are tool
and data model management requirements in addition to the protocol
in order to have a
Hi Jan,
Please, see in line.
Igor
From: Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 12:55 PM
To: Igor Bryskin; Jamal Hadi Salim; Dean Bogdanovic
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Joel M. Halpern; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:36:44AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
wrote:
On 4/19/14, 5:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
Both throughput and latency are meaningless from the standardization point
of
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:51:08AM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
wrote:
Russ,
On 4/19/14, 11:06 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
What you are asking for would be a lot of work for no practical purpose.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:10:16PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
The assumption:
I am assuming that the information models are not a waste of time. Jeff
Haas' comment was isn't having information models and data models a
duplication of effort.
First of all, RBNF and ABNF seem to be causing
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:02:18PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
The binary encoding of FORCES may help with speed.
It was asserted elsewhere (copied below) that this may only be 3-5% of a
speed improvement. (I had thought I recalled a discussion in netmod(?) at
one point of a BER format for
Juergen,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:04:04PM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 03:02:18PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
The binary encoding of FORCES may help with speed.
It was asserted elsewhere (copied below) that this may only be 3-5% of a
speed improvement. (I
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
I think Jan and others have explained why they think they can leverage
the NC/RC/YANG technology to implement I2RS. There are tool
and
On Apr 21, 2014, at 12:46 AM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
wrote:
On 4/19/14, 5:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net
wrote:
It comes down how many transactions are required? Will you
As a minor point, I consider the embedding of file management and
business logic into the core of NetConf was probably a mistake.
ForCES does have version numbers on classes, so if you change an LFB
class definition, you increase the revision.
It also has inheritance, which provides an effective
(jmedved); Dean Bogdanovic; Jamal Hadi Salim
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
+1 for Netconf for the I2RS protocol and YANG for the modeling language.
On 4/18/14 3:04 PM, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com wrote:
+1 for Netconf/YANG
On 4/19/14, 5:49 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net
wrote:
It comes down how many transactions are required? Will you updated 1000
routes in single transaction or in 1000 transactions.
Take your pick. The point
So 54 emails later
I still dont see the requirements. Of course even before London i was asking for
what the requirements are and got nothing. I ended putting a draft
handwaving what
the requirements are. Nobody agreed or disagreed.
Yes, there is a protocols requirement draft that just died.
Salim
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be considered:
1. technical
2. commercial/business
We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business
perspective for Juniper going
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Jan Medved (jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
wrote:
[..]
I actually think it is - what's wrong with working code? ;-)
Unless you have _working_ I2RS code - this is a meaningless
@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Susan,
For YANG following is necessary:
publish current model in YANG
and
YANG compiler
We are looking at creating some additional tools to make easier for
developers to work with YANG and Junos, but the above two
: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Susan,
For YANG following is necessary:
publish current model in YANG
and
YANG compiler
We are looking at creating some additional tools to make easier for
developers to work with YANG and Junos, but the above two are main
conditions
And the basic premise of I2RS is that there are requirements for the work
that were not addressed properly by the existing configuration protocols.
Otherwise the WG would not even need to discuss protocol modifications.
So the fact that NetConf / YANG works for device configuration does not
But the point is that a more realistic choice should be between these two
choices.
Why?
:-)
Russ
___
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
Can you explain how an off-line representation of the data model can be
fast
or slow?
Marshalling can still be fast or slow. I'm not convinced that YANG, being
focused on management, rather than protocol level interaction, doesn't have
a lot of stuff that's not needed, and does have all the
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Russ White ru...@riw.us wrote:
Can you explain how an off-line representation of the data model can be
fast
or slow?
Marshalling can still be fast or slow. I'm not convinced that YANG, being
focused on management, rather than protocol level interaction,
There are a number of modeling and protocol expectations (I think they
can be reasonable called requirements, and I think they have been agreed
by the working group) in the architecture draft. Some of them are a
stretch for YANG. Some of them are a stretch for ForCES.
Yours,
Joel
On
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote:
There are a number of modeling and protocol expectations (I think they can
be reasonable called requirements, and I think they have been agreed by the
working group) in the architecture draft. Some of them are a
I actually expect that YANG can be extended to do what is needed. I
also expect that ForCES protocol can be extended to do what is needed on
the protocol side.
But that is not the same as saying that either item as is meets the
needs as stated.
It would seem appropriate to at least
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote:
I actually expect that YANG can be extended to do what is needed. I also
expect that ForCES protocol can be extended to do what is needed on the
protocol side.
But that is not the same as saying that either
On Apr 19, 2014, at 3:08 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
What is working i2rs code?
Code that implements, using your choice of model and protocol, the I2RS
semantics. To examplify using your slides
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
It comes down how many transactions are required? Will you updated 1000
routes in single transaction or in 1000 transactions.
Take your pick. The point is it boils down to how that is modelled and carried
over the wire
Ok, since nobody is saying anything i'll bite.
How would you like for this discussion to proceed?
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Edward Crabbe e...@google.com wrote:
Dear I2RSers,
At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation
regarding selection of both modeling
Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be considered:
1. technical
2. commercial/business
We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business
perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more sense. We already
built the Junos model in YANG and
have or are in process
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be considered:
1. technical
2. commercial/business
We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business
perspective for
Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make
Hi Dean,
I attended i2rs session in London on this issue.
My question is why ONF Management and Configuration protocol (OF-Config
1.2) was not on the table.
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net wrote:
Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Dean Bogdanovic
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Hi Dean,
I attended i2rs session in London on this issue.
My question is why ONF Management and Configuration protocol
I believe its because OF-Config does not meet the requirements we set
forth.
--Tom
On Apr 18, 2014:11:31 AM, at 11:31 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Dean,
I attended i2rs session in London on this issue.
My question is why ONF Management and
required.
Sue Hares
*From:* i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Behcet Sarikaya
*Sent:* Friday, April 18, 2014 11:32 AM
*To:* Dean Bogdanovic
*Cc:* i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim
*Subject:* Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Hi Dean,
I attended
I dont think a post like this is useful.
State your reasons please - just cheering on is not helpful.
cheers,
jamal
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
Sorry for the top post, but I wanted to inject that for the record,
Brocade is in favor
And what are those mysterious requirements it doesnt meet Thomas?
cheers,
jamal
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
I believe its because OF-Config does not meet the requirements we set forth.
--Tom
On Apr 18, 2014:11:31 AM, at 11:31 AM, Behcet
.
Sue Hares
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 11:32 AM
To: Dean Bogdanovic
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Hi Dean,
I attended i2rs session
If the study showed that OF-Config did not meet the requirements, that is fine
but I heard no one said that.
On Feb 5th, Alia Atlas said:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg01243.html
Gap Analysis for different Protocols: I2RS needs to select a protocol to use.
I
Why is that not useful? Because I didn't say I was in favor of forces?
*) It IS useful to say that my company's products implement Yang/Netconf and
will support RestConf, and therefore a derivative of those technologies used
for i2rs is preferred. We have no plans to support any of the
On Apr 18, 2014:12:46 PM, at 12:46 PM, Nitin Bahadur nitin_baha...@yahoo.com
wrote:
If the study showed that OF-Config did not meet the requirements, that is
fine but I heard no one said that.
On Feb 5th, Alia Atlas said:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
Why is that not useful? Because I didn't say I was in favor of
forces? *)
Not at all. Your statement was more like a high five. It is ok to
raise your hand at
the meeting - but i was hoping the list would
On Apr 18, 2014:2:21 PM, at 2:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com
wrote:
Why is that not useful? Because I didn't say I was in favor of
forces? *)
Not at all. Your statement was more like a high
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.comwrote:
On Apr 18, 2014:2:21 PM, at 2:21 PM, Jamal Hadi Salim h...@mojatatu.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com
wrote:
Why is that not useful? Because I didn't say
On Apr 18, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014:2:37 PM, at 2:37 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com
wrote:
On Apr 18, 2014:2:21 PM, at 2:21 PM, Jamal Hadi
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com wrote:
So again it boils down to bussiness reasons - am i wrong?
Yes, but not in the way you imply.
My company has implemented Yang/Netconf because our customers have asked us to
and because when we did, they
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
I guess I knew that Brocade already uses YANG, and inferred that
what was Tom meant.
You stated that YANG only does config, which is incorrect.
It may be useful for people have not bothered to read either
YANG or
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
It would be just as valid for people to chime in We already use ForCES
or we use already OF-Config, as a reason to use it for I2RS.
I will drop the idea of ForCES being the better candidate if there is
actually an analysis
Cisco is also implementing Netconf - it¹s available on XR today, and it
will be available on other platforms as well.
For OpenDaylight, we chose Yang as the IDL to describe internal and
external APIs in the controller and so far it has served its purpose
really well.
Also, as Tom pointed out,
@ietf.org i2rs@ietf.org, Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Cisco is also implementing Netconf - it¹s available on XR today, and it
will be available on other platforms as well.
For OpenDaylight, we chose Yang as the IDL to describe internal
) jmed...@cisco.com
Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net, Jamal Hadi Salim
h...@mojatatu.com
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org i2rs@ietf.org, Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Cisco is also implementing Netconf - it¹s available
e...@google.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Cisco is also implementing Netconf - it¹s available on XR today, and it
will be available on other platforms as well.
For OpenDaylight, we chose Yang as the IDL to describe internal and
external APIs in the controller and so
(jmedved) jmed...@cisco.com
Date: Friday, April 18, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Dean Bogdanovic de...@juniper.net, Jamal Hadi Salim
h...@mojatatu.com
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org i2rs@ietf.org, Edward Crabbe e...@google.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Cisco is also implementing Netconf
Subject: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Dear I2RSers,
At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation
regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport
protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use of Yang and (NetConf or
RestConf) (unclear
To: Jamal Hadi Salim
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
Jamal,
Here are two criteria to be considered:
1. technical
2. commercial/business
We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from business
perspective for Juniper
, 2014 11:57 AM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: Dean Bogdanovic; i2rs@ietf.org; Edward Crabbe; Jamal Hadi Salim
Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Susan Hares sha...@ndzh.com wrote:
Behcet:
Can you tell me how the ONF Management
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
