On 12/1/14 7:38 PM, Dean Bogdanovic wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 7:15 PM, "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014:7:10 PM, at 7:10 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
the “MIB Doctor” model we are using is not going to scale out to the
numbers of Yang models that are in need of advice or review, nor will
be scale in terms of progressing models through the IETF’s RFC
process. The fact is that we simply do not have enough Yang Doctors
to cover all of the models in question, despite our best efforts.
is this a sign that we do not have enough medical care or that we are
unleashing an unarchitected epidemic of overly device-specific snmp with
the syntax changed?
Speaking from my own personal opinion, it seems that operators are finding this stuff useful and are
demanding that people build products with it.
I agree with you on this one. See it from multiple operators in Americas and EMEA (haven't seen in APAC personally). Operators have been translating their service configurations into YANG and are looking how to adapt their service models to proprietary operator models. For them, having standard config models, would make it much more easier to translate their service models and let the vendors worry about translation from standard to proprietary models.
Dean
What is the IETF when many of the newer networking companies do not find
YANG worth investing in? I'm thinking of Arista as a good example of a
networking vendor that (i've been told) feels supporting YANG makes them
less agile than their APIs.
tim