Hi, Haomian: The idea here is to factor out common pieces of L3NM and L2NM if my understanding is correct, these common pieces could be reused by other future modules, so I am not sure your assumption on 10 out of 100 is correct. In any case, I would suggest to reuse types in the existing published types modules as much as possible, make sure we will not reinvent any new wheels that have been defined somewhere else.
-Qin 发件人: Zhenghaomian 发送时间: 2020年6月4日 14:16 收件人: Qin Wu <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]>; SAMIER BARGUIL GIRALDO <[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected] 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020) Hi, Joe, Qin, The groupings in the types is understood to be used in multiple other modules. Considering about the potential ‘uses’ in other models, it may not be a matter for putting in a same type YANG or separate one. A more challenging issue is to have a ‘right-fit’ types. If a types contain 100 typedef and identities, sometimes we will be in the dilemma whether we should import it as we may only use no more than 10 in it. In such case re-definition seems to be a waste but importation would be too much weight. It can be even worse if we start a new one, then redefine some of them and add more for extension. Thoughts? Best wishes, Haomian 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Qin Wu 发送时间: 2020年6月4日 12:09 收件人: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; SAMIER BARGUIL GIRALDO <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020) 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Joe Clarke (jclarke) 发送时间: 2020年6月4日 0:16 收件人: SAMIER BARGUIL GIRALDO <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: Re: [OPSAWG] Minutes of L3NM/L2NM module discussions (27th-May-2020) The module is available in the following PULL REQUEST: https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/l3nm/pull/118 I know other *types module have included groupings, but to add groupings in a types module seems wrong to me. I would just expect typedefs and identities. [Qin]: We lack a good usage guidance on which kind of groupings should be included in types module, section 4.3 of RFC8407 said: “ 4.13<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-4.13>. Reusable Groupings A reusable grouping is a YANG grouping that can be imported by another module and is intended for use by other modules. ” But it didn’t tell us whether the reusable grouping should be in the separate module or in the same type modules as identity and typedef. Following some published type module examples,e.g.,RFC8294 and draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-13 in the RFC queue, it did add some of reusable grouping in the type modules, my impression is grouping that contain newly defined typedef and identities can be added into type modules, grouping in grouping, we need to be very carefully, There are some guidance on reusable grouping in section 4.3 of RFC8407
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
