Yes, the boundaries are blurry and it does not matter which layering model you use. M.3010 does not change the fact that boundaries are blurry.
I think it is not a problem. My understanding was that the I-D primarily aims at establish a common vocabulary and it should IMHO explicitely state that boundaries are blurry and that the main purpose is to simplify 'human communication'. The classification is not for 'implementation'. /js On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:43:51PM +0000, Alexander Clemm (alex) wrote: > I am wondering what purpose the classification really serves. At the end of > the day, it seems to me that we are trying to express a model hierarchy, and > articulate what the layers in the hierarchy are. A device model is thus at a > lower layer than a service model. An implementation of the service model may > in turn have dependencies on the device model, but not the other way round. > > Where the models are instantiated - on a controller, on a "device", etc - > seems to be secondary and incidental. The boundaries are blurry, anyways. A > controller is a device too; some devices may contain virtualized controllers, > and so on. > > One model that is relevant in this discussion seems to be the TMN model, as > defined in ITU-T Recommendation M.3010. This model defines a set of > management layers - network element (device), network, service, business - > with well defined funcional scope of each layer. The layers / function > hierarchy also imply an information and data model hierarchy. > > Would it make sense to see if the layering in M.3010 could help guide YANG > model classification, and reference those definitions? > > --- Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carl Moberg > (camoberg) > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 1:57 AM > To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG model classification? > > > > -- > Carl Moberg > Technology Director, CVG > [email protected] > > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I come at this from the classification angle, so my interest is if > >> the assumption that a YANG model can only be classified as a network > >> service model XOR a network device model according to the definitions > >> in draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification (sections 2.1 and > >> 2.2). Based on this discussion I take it that some models are intended to > >> be able to serve in both roles. And we should make sure that it’s > >> supported in our catalog structure. > > > > Regarding the XOR assumption for classification: > > > > You may also want to think about YANG models that are NEITHER device NOR > > service models. For instance, what about RFC 6991? And I think other, more > > technical models presented this week may fall into a similar category > > ("generic"?). > > Very good point, thanks! That will need some additional thinking and writing. > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- 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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
