Subject: Re: [netmod] [Rtg-yang-coord] Recursive modeling in Yang?

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 20:58:48 -0800 (GMT-08:00)

Hi -

>From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Dec 15, 2014 7:59 PM
>To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [netmod] [Rtg-yang-coord]  Recursive modeling in Yang?
>
>Randy Presuhn writes:
>>Ancient history note:  in the CMIP / GDMO world object containment
>>recursion was featured from the very outset.  It caused no controversy.
>
>NETCONF rejected the idea of "objects".  Config data is just data,
>nothing more magical.

I still believe that the lack of an underlying metamodel makes
the netconf universe far more complicated than it needs to be,
particularly when it comes to, say, managing open systems with hot-
swappable components from multiple vendors or dealing with multiple
versions of a kind of managed resource residing within a single system.

>>It did not complicate implementation of industrial-strength modeling
>>language processors, protocol engines, agents, subagents, or managers.
>
>Saying that CMIP and GDMO were not complicated is, well, odd.  Even
>the small port of the ocean that NETCONF boils turns out to be
>fairly complicated.

Apologies if this comes across as a rant.  It's hard to hold my
tongue watching NETCONF flailing on issues that were dealt with
a quarter century ago.  :-)

There's a lot of IETF folklore about CMIP/GDMO being complicated.
Much of that is, well, folklore, with roots in a highly politicized
environment dominated by FUD marketing masquerading as technological
insight.  I've worked through the muck of the goriest details of the
implementation of both CMIP/GDMO and SNMP/SMI technologies.
Both sets have their strengths and weaknesses, but I still believe
that CMIP/GDMO came closer to getting things right for dealing with
systems complex enough to be interesting.

(Rest of rant deleted, because it would just waste this group's
time.)

Randy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:52:16 +0100

> versions of a kind of managed resource residing within a single system.

Randy, what about writing a draft so we can review it and see how such
a metamodel looks like and solves our problems?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 10:31:44 +0100

> versions of a kind of managed resource residing within a single

I now tend to agree with this, due to all the troubles we have
with concurrent access through different management interfaces,
ephemeral datastores, etc.

Are there any documents left from those ancient times where I could read
about the CMIP metamodel?

Thanks, Lada

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C