Tom: Thank you for reminding people of the Entity-MIB Yang Model.
Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:17 AM To: Susan Hares Cc: Dongjie (Jimmy); Juergen Schoenwaelder; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt > On Apr 7, 2015:9:39 AM, at 9:39 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Juergen: > > This is good feedback on the L2 topology versus interface module. > > Stating "taking out all objects that are interface specific" is a bit > broad, but in principle specifics that belong to interfaces should be > in the interfaces module. The L2 specification is part of a virtual > topology that reflects interfaces, links, nodes, and terminating > points. There will be some references to the virtual principles. Some > things chassis-id imply a shared group resources (interfaces in a > chassis) which creates a shared risk group. The virtual topology > needs to indicate which interfaces are within a shared risk group. As > Jie has mentioned, he will take into account your comments in the next revision of the draft. I agree with Juergen on the interfaces point. I also want to remind folks that the chassis-related stuff are being broken off and put into the effort to build the Entity-MIB Yang Model. There is a design team that I kicked off in NETMOD to do this work. Jimmy is part of that DT and should be able to sync up with that effort. --Tom > I have already spoken to some IEEE people about who to talk to about > the LLDP yang modules. It appears the appropriate group is the 802.1 > working group, and I will send a note to the chair today. > > Sue > > -----Original Message----- > From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Juergen > Schoenwaelder > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 5:45 AM > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) > Cc: [email protected]; Susan Hares > Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for > draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:36:18AM +0000, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote: >> Hi Juergen, >> >> Thanks for your comments on this L2 topology model. Please see some > replies inline. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:18 PM >>> To: Susan Hares >>> Cc: [email protected]; Dongjie (Jimmy) >>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for >>> draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt >>> >>> 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-topolog >>>> y/ >>>> >>>> <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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> As a topology model, the L2 topology model is focusing on the >> overview of > connectivity between the network entities from layer-2's perspective, > thus the detailed config and operational information of interfaces > will not be covered in this model, only those which are used as the > identifiers of nodes and termination-points are included. We will take > a look at whether the interface model should be referenced here. >> > > Are you saying you will take out all objects that are interface > specific? I think there should be text explaining the relationship to > the ietf-interfaces model and extensions of it. > >> The chassis-id here has the same meaning as it is in LLDP. Currently >> its > type is set to mac-address as one common implementation. This could be > updated with a more generic type. > > Well, it is simply under specified what it is. And there is the model > of physical entities where a chassis has a specific meaning. Anyway, > there needs to be more relationship sections explaining all this. But > at this point, many things are simply too vague to understand what > they mean and it is unclear where the information would come from. > > /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 _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
