Hi Tom, > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:17 PM > To: Susan Hares > Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Dongjie (Jimmy); [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
Agree that the chassis-related stuff needs to be specified in the entity-mib yang model, and the identifiers used in the topology drafts will sync up with that model. -Jie > > > 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
