Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:00:31 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I have published draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-00.

It now uses the iana-if-type enumeration instead of a YANG identity
for interface types.

Please review this document.

One question is what we should do with ip (v4 & v6) address
configuration:

  1.  Should the WG do this?

      I think we should.

  2.  Should it be done in a separate YANG module?

      I think it actually could be done as part of the interface list.
      Some people might think it breaks the nice modular layering, but
      I can live with that.  It doesn't prevent other technologies
      from augmenting the interface list with other objects (for IPX
      or whatever).

  3.  If it is done in a separate YANG module, should it be a separate
      document?

/martin

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:55:54 +0200

Hi, 

See in-line my contributor opinions. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:01 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It now uses the iana-if-type enumeration instead of a YANG 
> identity for interface types.
> 

I agree. 

>       from augmenting the interface list with other objects (for IPX

It must be done in a separate YANG module which will be maintained by
IANA. 

>   3.  If it is done in a separate YANG module, should it be a separate

It does not matter, as long as the document which includes the module
describes clearly in the IANA Considerations section what IANA needs to
do. 

> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:33:00 +0200

>   1.  Should the WG do this?

To me, it makes sense to do this.

>       from augmenting the interface list with other objects (for IPX

You are saying it can be done but that does not mean it should be
done.  Unless there is a real benefit of inlining IP interface
configuration, I would rather maintain modularity.

>   3.  If it is done in a separate YANG module, should it be a separate

For maintenance reasons, I would prefer a separate document. This also
allows us to have the core interface model done while we still figure
out some details of IP interface configuration.

/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/>

---

From: "Remi Scavenius" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:09:44 +0200

Hello,

This short message just to point that the CFP of the second edition of 
Network Automation (Paris, November 2011) is open at:
http://www.upperside.fr/networkautomation2011/networkautomation2011intro.html

Best
Remi Scavenius, NWA agenda manager