Subject: [Int-area] Two data structure proposals addressed in draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00.txt

From: Mandy Liu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 03:26:16 +0000

Hi Int-area,

The draft [1]<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00.txt> defines the YANG module for IPv4/IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel.  This draft is an attempt to merge two YANG modules published previously [2]<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang/> and [3]<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zheng-intarea-tunneling-for-ipv6-yang/>.  While merging, the co-authors came upon the question of how to organize data that would benefit from the working group's feedback.

There are two optional tunnel YANG models addressed in the draft (i.e. https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang-00.txt).

-          Option 1 is about different types of tunnel has independent list. Each type of tunnel can have its own min-elements and max-elements setting. Different types of tunnels can use the same name, just need to make sure the name is unique in each tunnel type.

-          Option 2 is about all types of tunnels are included in one list. All types of tunnels share the whole resource (i.e. min-elements and max-elements), can't set the min-elements and max-elements for each type of tunnel separately. And need to assure the tunnel name is unique among all types of tunnels.

We would like to initiate a discussion on the two options to determine which one is more common and friendly for the user. Please share you views and suggestions. Thanks!

[1]http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang/

[2]http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-rtgwg-ipipv4-tunnel-yang/

[3] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zheng-intarea-tunneling-for-ipv6-yang/

Regards,
Mandy