Hi All, Following last week's discussion in Dublin regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel, we would appreciate feedback from the working group and chairs on how to proceed.
To provide context, we initially defined an information model to establish a common framework for discard reporting that could be implemented across different data models, such as YANG and IPFIX. We selected YANG to define the information model for three key reasons: 1) the RFC8791 extensions enable the model to be decoupled from specific implementations; 2) this approach allows for lossless translation to a YANG-based data model; 3) the community has extensive experience with YANG. During the discussion, two main perspectives emerged: continue with the current approach of defining an information model; redefine the draft as a data model. Given that the information model is already in YANG, creating data models for interface, device, and control-plane would be straightforward. This could also serve as a reference for a future IPFIX-based discard reporting data model. Hence, we would appreciate feedback on whether the best path forward is to continue with the current information model approach or to refocus on developing data models instead? thanks John Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
