Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-13.txt

Tue, 27 Jun 2017 06:44:50 -0700 

Xufeng,
Thanks for the confirmation. That hadn't been clear from the previous emails. 


When you generate the "-state" modules, I would suggest that you also 
reuse and import any typedefs that you have in the original NMDA 
compliant module, rather than redefine them.  That should make it easier 
for implementers, both now and in the future.


Thanks,
Rob


On 27/06/2017 14:23, Xufeng Liu wrote:



As Alex mentioned in another email, we have discussed and agreed on 
the plan to move forward with both I2RS topology model and TE topology 
model, by adding the “-state” module. We will do it as quickly as 
possible.


Thanks,

- Xufeng

*From:*Robert Wilton [mailto:rwil...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 27, 2017 5:50 AM

*To:* Alexander Clemm <alexander.cl...@huawei.com>; Xufeng Liu 
<xufeng_...@jabil.com>; i2rs@ietf.org

*Subject:* Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-13.txt

Hi Alex,


If you need to represent learned topologies before NMDA compliant 
implementations are available then you need the extra -state module 
(i.e. a copy of the NMDA compatible I2RS topology module, but with 
name appended with -state and all nodes set as config false).  This 
could be generated via tooling, put into github, or added in an 
appendix to the draft.



Without this, then the existing I2RS topology module can only be used 
to represent configured topologies on non NMDA compliant 
implementations (specifically any implementations that don't expose 
the operational state datastore).



For NMDA compliant implementations the network topology module in 
draft -13 works well.


Thanks,
Rob

On 26/06/2017 18:52, Alexander Clemm wrote:

    Hi Rob,

    Inline <ALEX>, below

    Thanks

    --- Alex

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: "*Robert Wilton*" <rwil...@cisco.com <mailto:rwil...@cisco.com>>
    Date: Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 1:53 AM -0700
    Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action:
    draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-13.txt
    To: "Alexander Clemm" <lud...@clemm.org
    <mailto:lud...@clemm.org>>, <i2rs@ietf.org
    <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>>, "'Nitin Bahadur'"
    <nitin_baha...@yahoo.com <mailto:nitin_baha...@yahoo.com>>, "'Russ
    White'" <r...@riw.us <mailto:r...@riw.us>>, "'Xufeng Liu'"
    <xufeng_...@jabil.com <mailto:xufeng_...@jabil.com>>,
    <h...@packetdesign.com <mailto:h...@packetdesign.com>>, "'Jan
    Medved (jmedved)'" <jmed...@cisco.com <mailto:jmed...@cisco.com>>,
    <robert.va...@pantheon.sk <mailto:robert.va...@pantheon.sk>>,
    "'Susan Hares'" <sha...@ndzh.com <mailto:sha...@ndzh.com>>, "Kent
    Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net <mailto:kwat...@juniper.net>>,
    "Martin Bjorklund" <m...@tail-f.com <mailto:m...@tail-f.com>>


    Hi Juergen,


      

      


    On 24/06/2017 14:17, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

    > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:44:00AM +0100, Robert Wilton wrote:

    >> Do you think that it would be useful if the draft also included the extra

    >> transient "-state" modules in an appendix (e.g. as per

    >> draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01 section 2)?

    >>

    >> Specifically, I'm thinking to help make the topology module fully usable 
by

    >> modules that augment it (e.g. by the TE modules if/when they adopt the 
NMDA

    >> conventions), until NMDA implementations before widely available.

    >>

    > Rob,

    >

    > the less we have of those transient "-state" trees, the better it is.

    > For LMAP (in auth48) we did not do this. These extra "-state" trees

    > should ideally only be used in very rare cases, I think existing code

    > already works with a single tree (at least this is what I understood

    > from the OpenDaylight discussions).

    I completely agree with you in general, but for the topology module I

    think that the -state tree is required to represent topologies that

    exist but have not been configured (e.g. perhaps those learned from a

    dynamic routing protocol).


      


    Also copying Kent and Martin, since they were very both very involved in

    the discussions on the I2RS alias discussing the structure of the I2RS

    network topology module.


      


    My interpretation is from Xufeng was it is needed for the TE YANG

    modules, but if it turns out that it is not actually needed, then that

    is also good with me ;-)


      


    <ALEX>

    The need to represent topologies that are learned is certainly
    there.  It is not exclusive to TE, and I would be surprised if TE

    YANG modules have an extra need for a separate state tree. 
    Probably the best person to comment here is Xufeng, but it sounds

    to me, also per Juergen’s comments, that an extra state tree will
    _/not/_ be needed.

    </ALEX>

    Thanks,

    Rob


      


    >

    > /js

    >


      




_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs





























					Reply via email to