On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Thomas D. Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >
Hi, The design team met for several hours in Dallas. I will be producing an initial draft based on those discussions. I will send meeting notes to the WG mailing list first. We most focused on how to adapt the existing ENTITY MIB modules, not on missing data that I2RS needs beyond the adapted MIB modules. > --Tom Andy > > >> 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
