One final thought on this I-D. As most of you will have seen,
I have queried the placement of the network type wson-topology
under te-topology instead of under network-types not seeing
an explanation of the rationale of the tree structure in the RFC that
set up the namespace for this scenario. I struggle to see the benefit
of one over the other when it comes to using the YANG modules in a
network, creating the data and accessing it, and have a vague concern
that this hierarchy may turn out to be limiting in future.
However, noone else agrees with me so I will leave it at that; I post
this here for completeness, the discussion having spanned three WG.
I note that the other CCAMP modules use the same placement.
Tom Petch
Abstract
This document provides a YANG data model for the routing and
wavelength assignment (RWA) TE topology in wavelength switched
optical networks (WSONs). The YANG data model defined in this
document conforms to the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA).
The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
The document contains these normative downward references.
See RFC 3967 for additional information:
draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang: A Yang Data
Model for Optical Impairment-aware Topology (None - IETF stream)
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexigrid-yang: YANG data model for Flexi-Grid
Optical Networks (None - IETF stream)
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
