Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [OPSAWG] Getting rid of network-hardware-inventory container for straightfoward model alignment that satisfies both hardware inventory needs and generalization/extensibility goals (was: Re: [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model)
Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org> Mon, 11 September 2023 18:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ludwig@clemm.org>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A48DC13AE42; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3Oam6JDcd8Q; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47D58C1524B6; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:25:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.0.44] ([73.189.160.186]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lwb5V-1pXiyp04OV-018Gyy; Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:25:16 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------IZs9z0JEXu3bWSt2C30lFE9o"
Message-ID: <08fdfcc1-4783-fe9e-9459-bb12057d7251@clemm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:25:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>, "maqiufang (A)" <maqiufang1=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "inventory-yang@ietf.org" <inventory-yang@ietf.org>
Cc: "ivy-chairs@ietf.org" <ivy-chairs@ietf.org>, opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <7c4effcc6c5d43a6a7ddc4735d370272@huawei.com> <4ee7a7b3-cb14-0970-9101-cc10884bcbdb@clemm.org> <c70863644ddb404d87709e4bf0430e7e@huawei.com>
From: Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>
In-Reply-To: <c70863644ddb404d87709e4bf0430e7e@huawei.com>
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:eQwEePBZiljEniE2X1vYewucxy1j5qKpi2UgLD69TVtWZ3t/qh3 Frv0aaJ3kMeq2LM+GZ6vK2yldS3n5Ih0MsuibylseHJHDvZKe83iydJdNxrmbB+aIQEZGzZ amCWrrEhhPpqhp2dsEsgAZUXw+d8Wn0eS+nmCkJWi5Snwk94YAZ/QVDjZcoc3qkMvISX+ze RiHoTqpZDha/ymPtsfIjg==
UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:w/7lwK0kQhY=;Msc+rfEsioroCTTT0f3gZnhqF1z brbiBbzxGfxOs6p1UT+XqyORDKlwNyAJN1DpFxmiP/hbR27GbkY+n2N9UXW9fJ+tdSGKtZHXj rLmJpwtGQfJPogTQ+tTSgaNmIv4+XRQK60CY7Wn133RjjIuy50cABvTsFToMXF7VI4KZTS4jb 6wLJN5QN3h3oXyvG9yhShk5+yB0sIAS2lVU1J4jPwEH1kpFPg4vdqE4vXMhLm0hZj6hgL/n0E W/VhidKOL77yryv2GcA8a2ev6iLNnrUN1Bd+TfWZD8u0f7ZeWpoGpeU7exrGzOZbgiiyoAN8S FDmlCE7YuiqwrWHUX9Us0V6vszPEPnQp2xgW+eIuMZdAgizwOFTRUXc7p5IakNn3tJpWC1jOd FNq9+pTqg53GXUyNtfkB2S8ngEGH4O0Dhe0Sal5BrkU/F7U53foekBPg6kxNfCQyBeXvCcLU9 9qRUIoTRtJ2OWkSCCTqEX86JocdAxwGUNHSHJ2Vw8Vxy1yqONHJOAMw/hOkaNsyQ6BXIgpVOI XQHK+Bic96Yxh0cB6Ibbf4odMuXEnyxS2MrLjjEU5+iSBEP0rYfVkWjfhxKofN17udKfXIopm M9lTzPKHLIb9SYqDleZ4nWOoLMwK6F4fxro62E48hERYAcOdjXqp5LeYSeb/Q72ZaCr54oPdN S8hBvf8k0wbS9sU3GFBCaMYqrRQC/qysrxjvH0ZSIBEJBvly2FUku0i4DJob3SUV52PzQG+KU 4u97M+2I2hMz3lr/j06IfbFq9hv8Asf2vu+SYjvq/izt/qVADcXtwyeo5aEGexZAfuNgMLx8o JedVe/c+nYStsLqjRl9cOIOOzCIzYT37MlpBDeu+4dmjXtpGkapg4nzXzrx1godEauvSVeRJk 6OS/PvZNac5rWfo327pLxyEklHV7iBUIch6U=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/5dokFjj0U7QRifDGj9atMN8DAk4>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [OPSAWG] Getting rid of network-hardware-inventory container for straightfoward model alignment that satisfies both hardware inventory needs and generalization/extensibility goals (was: Re: [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:25:31 -0000
Hello Bo, all, to your question: With the two inventory models, I was referring to the two models in the two drafts as per the poll, i.e.: (1) draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang-02 (ietf-network-hardware-inventory) (2) draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management-03 (ietf-network-inventory) To recap the point I was trying to made: I think both models are closer than it may initially appear. The main obstacle to aligning is the top-level container in ietf-network-hardware-inventory, "network-hardware-inventory". This object seems to serve no particular purpose, so could be easily removed. In doing so, "equipment-rooms" and "network-elements" would become top level objects, separable into separate modules (both of which can be specified in the same draft, of course). It will make sense for equipment-rooms to stand on its own anway since this contains _location_ information - this information can of course be referenced by items in the inventory, but the rooms by themselves are not part of the network-hardware-inventory (as the current model seems to suggest) and locations other than rooms are conceivable in some cases. So, not only will removing the top-level container make ietf-network-hardware-inventory facilitate alignment, but it will also arguably result in a "better" model. Looking forward to continued discussions --- Alex On 9/11/2023 2:19 AM, Wubo (lana) wrote: > > Hi Alex, all, > > It seems to me you mentioned two IVY models, one is the BASE inventory > model with minimum inventory attributes, and the other seems to be the > CORE inventory model, which is the major requirements as charter B. > Hardware/Software components including licenses. Am I correct? > > In addition, you also mentioned that the CCAMP > "network-hardware-inventory"may develop independently, as the > requirements seems different from the IVY core model, since the > equipment room is only for the indoor RACK location, not for the > outdoor location. > > I also have the same doubts. Is the goal of CCAMP inventory same as > IVY CORE inventory model? Last Wednesday CCAMP inventory weekly call, > I explained the following use cases from > draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-managementand proposed the merged > network inventory model : > > 1. Virtual devices, such as vCPE, vPE, vBNG, etc. > > 2. Software components, including device platform software, software > patch, boot-rom, bootloader, etc. > > 3. Site as a location option > > 4. License list > > 5. Terms of network inventory, including network inventory, network > element, and components > > 6. The merged network inventory model > > Here is some feedback and summary got on the call: > > 1.Some authors say virtual device, and software components are not > considered, as the purpose of CCAMP inventory is to meet ACTN Packet > Optical integration (POI) requirements for optical and IP multi-domain > TE cases etc, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability#section-4. > > 2. Some author shared the inventory information of Cisco vPE, > indicating that virtual devices share the same inventory attributes > just as physical devices: > > RP/0/RP0/CPU0:ron-srpce-791#show inventory all Wed Sep 6 14:50:04.239 UTC > > NAME: "0/0", DESCR: "Cisco IOS-XRv 9000 Centralized Line Card" > > PID: R-IOSXRV9000-LC-C, VID: V01, SN: B3BC8301B42 NAME: "0/0/0", > DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/1", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/2", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A,SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/3", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/4", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/5", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A NAME: "0/0/6", DESCR: "N/A" > > PID: PORT-1G-NIC, VID: N/A, SN: N/A > > NAME: "0/RP0", DESCR: "Cisco IOS-XRv 9000 Centralized Route Processor" > > PID: R-IOSXRV9000-RP-C, VID: V01, SN: 59D4943FFB2 NAME: "Rack 0", > DESCR: "Cisco IOS-XRv 9000 Centralized Virtual Router" > > PID: R-IOSXRV9000-CC, VID: V01, SN: 76E77892EA1 > > 3. The author has previously discussed the extension of sites and > licenses. > > 4. The authors and contributors took a quick look at the merged model, > and we plan to continue the discussion on this week. > > Thanks, > > Bo Wu > > *From:*OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Alexander L Clemm > *Sent:* Thursday, September 7, 2023 4:59 AM > *To:* maqiufang (A) <maqiufang1=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; > inventory-yang@ietf.org > *Cc:* ivy-chairs@ietf.org; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org>; ccamp@ietf.org > *Subject:* [OPSAWG] Getting rid of network-hardware-inventory > container for straightfoward model alignment that satisfies both > hardware inventory needs and generalization/extensibility goals (was: > Re: [inventory-yang] poll for network inventory base model) > > Hi all, > > I have been looking at both of the inventory models that have been > proposed and think that they are actually closer than it might seem > and that it should be relatively straightforward to align them. > > The main obstacle seems to the top container object > "network-hardware-inventory" in > draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang. Is this data node really > important? It seems to serve not particular function, other than > serving as a container for equipment room and network-elements. > However, both could easily stand on their own; there does not seem to > be a compelling reason that instances would need to be prefixed with > "network-hardware-inventory/". > > By removing this object, we get in effect two separate modules - one > for equipment-room, the other for network-elements. This makes sense > anyway, as only network-elements are items subject to inventorying and > equipment-room can stand on its own, providing auxiliary information > independent of actual inventory (plus allowing for network elements to > be housed also outside equipment rooms (Plus, depending on use case, > not every network element may not be located in an equipment room with > racks/rows/columns, but possibly in other locations eg roadside etc). > > The structure of network-elements now very much resembles the same > structure as we have in > draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management. Yes, the list is > defined in the model, instead of reusing / augmenting the list of > nodes, but this is a detail - the main thing is the structures are > aligned. > > The main difference from this point out concerns the actual parameters > that are actually included. Both models have a set of parameters in > common. draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang includes a couple of > additional hardware parameters, while > draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management includes additional > subtrees for licenses etc. It would seem that it would be > straightforward to define the common set of parameters as part of the > base model, then define additional augmentations to incorporate other > aspects of inventory as needed. Hardware inventory models would make > the start, of course, as this has the most pressing need of being > defined; at the same time the model structure provides the hooks and > implies a design pattern that will allow other aspects of inventory > (virtual network elements, licenses, etc) to be added in an integrated > fashion as needed. > > As a broad sketch, the resulting model structure would then be > composed of base inventory model (defining the network-elements list > with very few very basic data nodes, perhaps just name and asset tag) > , augmented with a hardware inventory model which adds augmentations > for the hardware parameters and components hierarchy and a separate > equipment room model. This covers everything that we have in > draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang. Then, IVY can add a model > for virtual network element inventory (augmented in per the same > pattern as the hardware model), license inventory, and anything else, > per the additional stuff that we have in > draft-wzwb-opsawg-network-inventory-management. > > So, in that sense I don't think we have to make a hard choice between > 1 and 2, but merge and in the course make some alignments to both. > For example, one could start with > draft-ietf-ccamp-network-inventory-yang, modifying it to remove the > network-hardware-inventory container and splitting the remaining > module in two (for equipment-room and network-elements, both of which > will now be top-level containers). Remaining modifications can be > made from there. I guess this makes me a proponent of option 3, but > with the caveat that this would not need to restart from scratch - > really an option 4 that says merge (for overall structure and common > parts, which in this case is possible) and split the remaining > difference. > > --- Alex > > On 8/27/2023 11:21 PM, maqiufang (A) wrote: > > 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 15^th > , 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 > > OPSAWG@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
- [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network invento… maqiufang (A)
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Joe Clarke (jclarke)
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… maqiufang (A)
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Diego R. Lopez
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… zhouchengyjy@chinamobile.com
- Re: [CCAMP] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: [Inventory-yang] [… Davis, Nigel
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Oscar González de Dios
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUQUIER, Vodafone
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Gabriele Galimberti
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Dieter Beller (Nokia)
- Re: [CCAMP] [OPSAWG] [inventory-yang] poll for ne… Aihua Guo
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Qin Wu
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Roberto Manzotti
- Re: [CCAMP] [OPSAWG] [inventory-yang] poll for ne… Wei Wang
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Prasenjit Manna (prmanna)
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Phil Bedard
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Dhruv Dhody
- [CCAMP] R: [EXT] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang… Peruzzini Fabio
- Re: [CCAMP] [OPSAWG] [inventory-yang] poll for ne… Alexander L Clemm
- [CCAMP] Getting rid of network-hardware-inventory… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Sergio Belotti (Nokia)
- Re: [CCAMP] [OPSAWG] Getting rid of network-hardw… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [OPSAWG] Getting rid… Alexander L Clemm
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [OPSAWG] Getting rid… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Italo Busi
- [CCAMP] 答复: [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… yuchaode
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Olga Havel
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… LUIS ANGEL MUÑOZ, Vodafone
- Re: [CCAMP] [inventory-yang] poll for network inv… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Marisol Palmero Amador (mpalmero)
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Camilo Cardona
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… Camilo Cardona
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… JEAN-FRANCOIS BOUQUIER, Vodafone
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [inventory-yang] pol… daniele.ietf
- [CCAMP] R: [EXT] Re: [Inventory-yang] [inventory-… Peruzzini Fabio
- Re: [CCAMP] [**EXTERNAL**] R: [EXT] Re: [Inventor… Davis, Nigel
- Re: [CCAMP] [Inventory-yang] [**EXTERNAL**] R: [E… Sergio Belotti (Nokia)