Hi, My preference is to go with Option 3 and create a core inventory model that could going forward be used for physical, virtual and resource logical inventory. I know the initial scope is to look at hardware and software components, but as it is a new effort we could provide the core that could be extended in the future.
One of the approaches from TMF that we can consider is to use the core inventory model that can be extended for all resources (TMF639), where resource inventory is split into physical and logical inventory. This is also aligned with ITU-T, MEF, ONAP, ... The new draft should also not replicate the same info that is in other drafts, like geo-location, L2 and L3 topology properties, proposed extension to IETF topology for digital map etc. Some comments about the individual drafts: [1] draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 The draft uses the TMF MTOSI Physical Inventory Model approach, and focuses on modelling of physical components of the network element, like rack, chassis, slot, board and port. The draft is also based on RFC8348 (which defines the YANG for single device physical inventory model) and plans to look at how to reuse this single device model at controller API by either reusing definitions or using schema-mount. I believe these are the correct approaches when the scope is physical inventory only, but my understanding is that the goal is to have the model for both physical, virtual and software inventory. [2] draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 The draft is focusing on network inventory, and defines it as a list of equipment, where equipment can be either physical or virtual. It has other properties that do not belong to the physical layer, like licenses, location, has links to asset ids. It has some duplications with IETF topology models for L2 and L3, geo-location RFC and some properties that may not belong to core inventory. Best Regards, Olga From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of maqiufang (A) Sent: Monday 28 August 2023 07:22 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; opsawg <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: [OPSAWG] [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model Hi Working Group, It's now time to start considering how to move forward with the inventory base model. We have two different documents that could be used as a starting point for our work or, in case the working group believes none of them is "good enough", we can start a brand new ID. In case the latter option is chosen, Daniele and I will write a -00 version including just the table of content and what we'd like to be covered in each section. The document will then be handed over to a pool of authors which will bring it till the WG adoption. Hence, we will have a 3 weeks polling starting today. We decided to make it a bit longer than usual because this time the working group is requested to review two drafts instead of one. This mail starts a 3 weeks polling, terminating on September 15th, where we would like the working group to express your preference among: 1. Adopt draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model 2. Adopt draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 in IVY and evolve it to become the network inventory base model 3. Start a brand new document from scratch as described above In the week after the closure of the polling (between September 18 and 25) we will have an IVY interim meeting to discuss the issues/concerns raised during the polling ( A separate mail will be sent). Thank you, Qiufang and Daniele
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
