Hi Chris, Thanks for your quick reply, and please see inline. Cheers, Tianran
-----Original Message----- From: Christian Hopps [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 10:00 AM To: Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Hopps <[email protected]>; wangyali <[email protected]>; Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Lsr] A new version of I-D, draft-liu-lsr-isis-ifit-node-capability-02 > On Mar 31, 2020, at 9:28 PM, Tianran Zhou <[email protected]> wrote: > > ZTR> Let's not boil the ocean to compare NETCONF/YANG or routing protocol, > which is better. But I did not see the modification to routing protocol with > some TLVs is a heavy work, or more complex than NETCONF/YANG. I see both are > available and useful. I'm not sure what you mean by boiling the ocean. I'm saying that YANG is built and intended for querying capabilities and configuring routers. Why isn't that where you are looking first for configuring your monitoring application? ZTR> I know NETCONF can do both query and configuration. And I know resent YANG-Push improvements to reduce the polling. But routing protocol solutions are also widely used for this. There are already many RFCs and implementation practices. We considered both ways, and aimed for different scenarios. You don't see the major difference between writing a YANG model vs modifying all of the standard IETF routing protocols? ZTR> I know many differences between NETCONF and routing protocol. There are many details on both interfaces, implementations, scenarios when comparing them. That's what I mean boil the ocean. Here I do not know what's the "major difference" you mean? Thanks, Chris. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
