Subject: [netmod] comments on draft-clemm-netmod-yang-network-topo-00.txt

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:43 +0200

Hi,

I have read the document with quite some interest since it kind of
paves the way to do _network_ management instead of just device
management. I am wondering about two little technical details:

a) Why do you not use YANG identities to represent topology types?

b) Why do you use inet:uri as the base type for node-id, link-id, and
   tp-id?

The I-D status says 'Intended Status: Experimental' - was your idea to
submit this for eventual publication as an experimental RFC?

/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: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 02:04:38 -0700

Hi,

I just want to add that I was very impressed with this draft.
A lot of work was done on the design and the actual data node
specifications, and it shows.

I support adoption of this draft as a NETMOD work item,
to produce a standards track RFC.
(agree w/Juergen Experimental is not desirable).

Andy

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:48 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:00:24 +0200

> (agree w/Juergen Experimental is not desirable).

+1

Lada

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C