There is a PAR/CSD making its way through dot1Q to develop YANG models in that committee. The first of those models is to develop the bridge model.
In addition to IEEE, I would think that the L2 topology work would be better served in MEF where we are trying to develop service models for L2 services. As a editor of that project, I would love a contribution from the authors and will support it there. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom: > > I'll drop a note to official liaison for IEEE is a good idea, and other > IEEE > members of 802.1 I know. Thank you for that input. > > The I2RS L2 protocol topology is the protocol independent topology. Just > as > Alexander Clemm points out that the L3 topology may be a virtual composite > of either the static setting or a combination of the protocol specific > topologies, the L2 topology is a virtual composite of the lower L2 > topologies. > > Sue Hares > > -----Original Message----- > From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau > Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:32 PM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder > Cc: [email protected]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Susan Hares; Dongjie (Jimmy) > Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for > draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt > > > > On Apr 6, 2015:11:17 AM, at 11:17 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:11:39AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > >> This begins a 2 week adoption call for > >> draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01. > >> > >> Please indicate in your comments "support" or "no support" and > >> discuss how this draft will allow I2RS client-agent pairs to query > >> information about L2 topology. The draft can be found at: > >> > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology/ > >> > >> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-l3-topo/> > > > > I wonder how this will interwork with any possible IEEE work. Bridges > > and VLANs had been modeled as MIBs back in a day but we meanwhile > > transferred work all over to IEEE. I think there should be some IEEE > > liaison interaction here. > > There has been indication at least, that the IEEE was going to > embark on this work to reflect the L2/bridge MIB work that went on there. > But as you say, there has been no official liaison to the IETF on this. > Perhaps Dan (CC:ed) knows? > > --Tom > > > > I also wonder to what extend this data model is repeating things that > > are already in the interfaces abstraction we have. There is no mention > > of RFC 7223 yet there is overlap. > > > > There are many other things I do not understand. Why is a chassis-id a > > mac-address (and how relates this notion of a chassis to the physical > > entity modeling work). How is this going to be implemented? Is the > > idea that the information is extracted out of a briding process or do > > protocols such as layer two discovery protocols like LLDP play a role > > here? In short, I think this model needs some decent IEEE layer two > > expertise - so does this really fall into the scope of I2RS? > > > > /js > > > > -- > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > -- Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
