Hi Juergen On 11/7/13 6:53 AM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:21:38AM -0500, Russ White wrote: >> >> > If we have a device-centric model showing interfaces and so on, then >> there's >> > not a good way to express the learned IGP topology. Would we then >>need a >> > different IM - perhaps as part of an IGP-specific IM - to communicate >>the >> > topology learned via the IGP? Would that be preferable? >> >> Yes, you are going to need different network models for different >>protocols, >> services, etc. There's not going to be any way to combine such models >>into a >> "coherent whole." >> > >Data models for different protocols such as OSPF or BGP have so far >been done in WGs that care about those protocols and this has >generally worked well as far as I can tell. We are now moving towards >YANG models for configuration and state data and a general framework >for YANG routing models has been defined in the NETMOD WG [1] (the >next update of this document will go to WG last call). We expect that >BGP, OSPF, ... specific extensions of this core routing model will be >produced and we envision that this work takes place in the routing >area, e.g., in WGs maintaining these routing protocols. Of course, >we first need concrete proposals to start from. > >I think what I am saying is that (a) there is work going on outside of >I2RS and we better avoid overlapping activities and (b) I like to >remind you that work can be split and it is not necessary that I2RS >creates all data models on its own. I2RS is not chartered to develop data models - it's chartered to develop *information models*. Not that I agree or disagree, I am just pointing out a subtle difference, which however has a practical impact: for example, for the topology model, we first developed a yang data model which was presented in the netmod WG. Then we also created a corresponding information model which was presented in the i2rs WG. For the I2RS RIB information model, there is a corresponding RIB yang data model, where we worked with Lada and aligned it with [1]. We would want to present it at the next IETF. So, there are no overlapping activities - the way the I2RS charter is defined, the WG operates at a different level. It has yet to decide what data modeling language should be adopted for i2rs, or whether data models would be developed in the WG. > >/js Thanks, Jan > >[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-11 > >-- >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/> >_______________________________________________ >i2rs mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
