Thanks Yuanlong,
When we discussed it this week, people in 802.1 seemed to agree with Option 2
as well, but then again... they are PHY/switch vendors and not really YANG
experts.
I think Marina assumed Option 1 because that is what the 802.1 "bridge-port"
YANG does. But... I think Option 1 makes sense there, because the "bridge-port"
represents the MAC layer of the physical port.
The IANA interface types do have PON and OTN:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-if-type-yang/iana-if-type-yang
but I think the point is that those are intended to be hardware. A 1588 port
seems more like a logical software concept.
I wonder if maybe we should post a link to this TICTOC question to the NETMOD
mailing list?
I assume the authors of RFC7223 participate in NETMOD but probably not TICTOC.
Rodney
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jiangyuanlong [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 7:09 AM
> To: Rodney Cummings ; [email protected]
> Cc: liuxian (C)
> Subject: RE: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang and RFC7223
>
> Hi Rodney,
>
> Thank you very much for bringing up the head-up situation in the IEEE.
> I wonder whether RFC7223 interface solely specifies Ethernet interfaces
> (the examples in this RFC seems give a positive answer).
> People may also want to support OTN, PON and other physical ports (as I am
> aware, IEEE 1588 PTP is supported by these physical layers now).
> Therefore, I prefer to your Option 2 and would like to reference to an
> RFC7223 interface just as an example.
> In this way, other interfaces may also be introduced quite easily.
>
> Cheers,
> Yuanlong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TICTOC [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rodney Cummings
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 6:16 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [TICTOC] draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang and RFC7223
>
> Hello all,
>
> Some questions have come up in recent meetings of IEEE 1588 and IEEE 802.1
> working groups that are relevant to the TICTOC project draft-ietf-tictoc-
> 1588v2-yang. I would like to get some feedback from TICTOC to help
> determine if a change is needed for draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang.
>
> 1588-2008 has the concept of a "port", and for a 1588 product with two or
> more ports, 1588 specifies the transfer of time between these ports. The
> 1588-2008 specifications for the port are "logical", in that they are
> independent of any specific transport or media. For example, the 1588 port
> can use a layer-2 802 mapping, or the port can use a UDP mapping.
>
> When a 1588-2008 product is managed (such as with YANG), the management
> client is likely to ask:
> How do I find the "real" port that a 1588 "logical" port is using?
> For example, if the UDP mapping is used, I might want to find relevant IP
> addresses, and then go down in the data models to find relevant MAC
> addresses, 802.3 link speeds, and so on.
>
> The current consensus in the 1588 working group is that although this
> question is important, since 1588 is transport-independent, the answer
> cannot be fully specified in the 1588 data sets (i.e. information model).
> The actual management data model (e.g. YANG, MIB, 1588 management
> protocol) potentially has better connections to the "real" port, and
> therefore 1588 defers this topic to each management data model. In other
> words, the 1588 standard itself will not fully answer this question, but
> the YANG (i.e. draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang) is expected to answer the
> question to the best of its ability.
>
> This question came up in a recent discussion in IEEE 802.1, relative to
> their profile of 1588, 802.1AS. Refer to slide 5 of:
> http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2017/as-gutierrez-yang-
> 0317-v01.pdf
> This presentation suggests that the 1588 port (called a "TAS port" in
> 802.1AS) should be done as an augment of the RFC7223 interface.
>
> The current consensus in IEEE 802.1 is that their profile 802.1AS will
> defer to the 1588 YANG module (draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang) for this
> decision. The YANG module for 802.1AS will augment the 1588 YANG module as
> described at the end of section 1 of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang.
>
> So... I think we need to select from one of three options for draft-ietf-
> tictoc-1588v2-yang:
>
> Option 1: 1588 port augments RFC7223 interface
> --
>
> Although this is a reasonable suggestion, it works under the assumption
> that a 1588 port "is a type of" RFC7223 interface. That implies that the
> 1588 port has a place in the interface stack represented by higher-layer-
> if and lower-layer-if.
>
> I would argue that a 1588 port "uses" an RFC7223 interface, and the 1588
> port does not belong in the interface stack. 1588 is a higher-layer
> protocol, and in that respect, it is more analogous to protocols like TCP
> and UDP, and not the protocols listed in iana-if-type.yang.
>
> If we decide to implement this option, we need to do it in the first 1588
> YANG (draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang). I assume that we cannot change the
> 1588 port from non-augment to augment in a future revision of the 1588
> YANG.
>
> Option 2: 1588 port contains a reference to an RFC7223 interface
> --
>
> 1588 requires a configured interface for each 1588 port. By using
> interface-ref instead of an interface augment, this establishes the
> relationship as "uses".
>
> This would be added to draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang as a new leaf in
> grouping port-ds-entry, such as:
> leaf interface-reference {
> type if:interface-ref;
> description
> "Reference to the configured interface that is used by
> this PTP Port (see RFC 7223).";
> }
> This enables the management client to find the interface that the 1588
> (PTP) port is using. The management client can also traverse up/down the
> interface stack to find additional information.
>
> Option 3: Do nothing in draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang
> --
>
> This is what we have so far.
>
> Presumably a future revision of the 1588 YANG could decide to implement
> option 2, but not option 1.
>
> Question: Which option should we use for draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang?
> --
>
> I recommend option 2.
>
> Previously I was fine with option 3, but since this is an open question in
> the 1588 community, it is best to resolve it in the first 1588 YANG
> module.
>
> At a minimum, we need to decide if we are doing option 1, because that
> decision cannot be changed in future 1588 YANG module revisions.
>
> This decision is not related to the 1588 data set specifications (2008 or
> future), because current 1588 consensus is that it is entirely within the
> scope of the 1588 YANG module.
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Rodney Cummings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TICTOC mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
