On Dec 1, 2014, at 9:59 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:54 PM, Dean Bogdanovic <deanb(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
wrote:
this is one part I don't understand. Why adding another language would make
them less agile?
If the yang model isn't a good representation of what is being modeled, it
can cause more harm than good.
This is not the answer to my question. I asked about adding support for another
language, not how the models are architected. Vendors can (and, in my personal
opinion, will) provide proprietary and standard data models. The operator can
choose then which model they want to use for their purposes.
Same problem exists with MIBs. When different implementations of the same
thing use different base assumptions, it can be difficult to come up with a
management model that is congruent with all of the different base assumptions
and is still useful. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but it's a good bet
that a poorly thought out model or a model that is based on experience with a
single implementation will fail in this regard.