Linda:
The reason for three different yang modules (fb-rib, fb-rib-type,
pkt-eca-policy) is modularity of the work. The
draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model contains two modules (fb-rib-types,
fb-rib), and draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-policy-data-model contains
pkt-eca-policy. I could put these all in one module if it is more
convenient.
The modularity of the yang modules are to focus :
1) pkt-eca-policy - packet ECA policy
2) Fb-rib-type: on modules definitions for fb-rib
3) fb-rib: operat (using if-feature)
I've attached just the change for the next revision of pkt-eca-policy that
includes the packet filter suggestions from I2NSF. This version of the
module is validated via pyang.
Sue
The L1 header involves the Sonet ring or OTN or DWDM as describe below:
// L1 header match identities
identity l1-header-match-type {
description
" L1 header type for match ";
}
identity l1-hdr-sonet-type {
base l1-header-match-type;
description
" L1 header sonet match ";
}
identity l1-hdr-OTN-type {
base l1-header-match-type;
description
" L1 header OTN match ";
}
identity l1-hdr-dwdm-type {
base l1-header-match-type;
description
" L1 header DWDM match ";
}
From: Linda Dunbar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:15 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [i2rs] relationship between
"draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and
"draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?
Sue,
Both those drafts are about YANG data models of Forwarding Rules based on
"L1/L2/L3/L4 header Matching Conditions". Why have two different YANG data
models?
p.s. pkt-eca-data-model even have L1 matching, which doesn't makes sense to
me. L1 is the transmission bit streams, terminated by the physical layer.
Linda
From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [i2rs] relationship between
"draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and
"draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?
Linda:
The English text may be similar, but the yang data modules are different in
the drafts. Since filters are still under consideration, I wanted to handle
draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model separately from the FB-RIB. The drafts
can be merged or left separate.
Is there a reason to merge these drafts?
Sue
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:21 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [i2rs] relationship between
"draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and
"draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?
Sue, qin and Russ,
It seems to me that there are a lot of overlap between the following two
drafts:
- draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt
- draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00
they are all on forwarding packets based on matching criteria of various
packet headers (L2/L3/L4).
Why need two separate IDs?
Can we merge them?
Just curious.
Linda
[email protected]
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
