Sue, Thanks for the hard work. We will take a look and probably drop in with a ForCES data model representation.
cheers, jamal On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all: > > > > I have attached a revision to the RIB info-model that replaces RBNF with UML > and yang topology drafts. I am hoping to have a discussion of the UML with > an approved draft before launching the UML/Yang topology models for the PBR > and BGP drafts. > > > > This was posted ~1 weeks ago, but the chairs suggest this go on another list > rather than the yang/forces discussion. To enforce this, the files were not > sent to the general i2rs list. Some people were directly copied so a brief > discussion occurred on list. Hopefully, under this new header all the files > will be forwarded for discussions. > > > > This document inherits the yang data trees (as pseudo informational models > from) the following locations as > > > > ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-13 has this chart that indicates > > > > +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ > > | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | > > +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ > > | if | ietf-interfaces | [YANG-IF] | > > | | | | > > | ip | ietf-ip | [YANG-IP] | > > | | | | > > | rt | ietf-routing | Section 7 | > > | | | | > > | v4ur | ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing | Section 8 | > > | | | | > > | v6ur | ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing | Section 9 | > > | | | | > > | yang | ietf-yang-types | [RFC6991] | > > | | | | > > | inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] | > > +--------+---------------------------+-----------+ > > > > Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules > > > > > > What changes did I make to the RIB section: > > > > 1)Revised RIB Grammar in RBNF (section 6.1) > > 2)(section 6.2) Spot for the pdf graphic attached as > > draft-hares-i2rs-info-rib-only-v7.pdf > > 3)(section 6.3) Yang tree structure (per yang documents) > > > > 4)Revised Usage – using simplified grammar > > > > Basically: > > > > Basically the complex RIB-info RBNF grammar boils down to very few simply > > statement. The Yang Tree does not provide an easy way to design/debug > > redundancy. I think that the use of the UML tools that create the Yang > > modules/Yang Tree structures could speed time to market on the designs. > > For example, all the I2RS RIB is simply 5 power-point slides, that > > then can be generated into Yang module. This seems the normal > > progression of the process you started with the Yang-modules. > > > > CAVEATS: > > > > 1)For all mistakes on the UML and diagrams blame me – this was the first > pass on the UML. > > 2) Some of the redundancies could have been fixed in other ways > > 3) I did Yang modules to demonstrate proof of concept > > 4) I suspect with Jamal and Joel Halpern’s help (FoRCES gurus).. FoRCES > > > > Chair’s /AD opinion: > > 1) Jeff is in favor of UML to improve the data model language > > 2) Ed Crabbe states he does not think informational models are useful – > why not go to the data modeling direct. > > 3) Adrian and Alia encouraged me to look at UML > > > > I’m in favor of Information models that can quickly express the concepts to > operators AND that can be used to generate code. UML-2.0 tools are out > there for to/from yang models, and yang to/from code. Seems like a > no-brainer tome to discuss 6 slides for the RIB info rather than the RBNF. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Sue Hares > > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
