[CCAMP] MEF services

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Tue, 17 July 2018 21:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
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 675A1129C6B; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5IxUDHvCxZ4; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x242.google.com (mail-io0-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::242]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E850F130E34; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x242.google.com with SMTP id g11-v6so2273519ioq.9; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=dHIpRO1GzG8gwbdJJauXK1SWcnYJfvaO4Xg3SOxqBEI=; b=G/6XaE1L+gb9OYAqGMtw/qMTPqZSf3emnxBuwch0H1Yd4V1oeJbuWeuidwO6Xvi57c wsmxVDnyypejkpkb1lQWA0K5MChlWm6saPeS34vwbc7kV0ZXSPlXh/Z/kzdOxM2tGyqr tROUBbj2pGaiMpIlNZ3iE6mx8LB6s6JK7JQgua99UpT4/8+g6NO0rVoTUGpht0m1TKIi zqLqL5Th4X/u4skJvPuIKNzehKGHAP3ZGqy/JN2d29QaQ99zGeUPgtPr7YOlQT5iovA7 ChuVARZSjl3K17jP9w1Cjg0eHM3sIzK2ix33IsG3BoSkMbJRREiCuJ9Erej/i0dOB/Yo MiiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=dHIpRO1GzG8gwbdJJauXK1SWcnYJfvaO4Xg3SOxqBEI=; b=AqEBoLAV706zSOUaniI5FEPonbja8zHVjBgfYFzXsN8LeqYOI9DvlBY1Skt2CC0JOy VWL55Q0BOHV6laq/cS+60iqPCIV9P3140pK1EKtSk5dZ1MEx0vJ56Smkgnn6y+jWNX1E afHUQwM3nFlm2DQ2U4ovyMh/r/SETdmzleM94pMOpIIcN4CoKcqtFoBIZL7OFPaL0xUb WBAOT24SFRymFDHsYZF4rWgCuql0eDfxeRn7x4nTv31ftnfUJxudizj3gWPzM+DKbiFo Q+EPRGWXbnBArGF7mu8mIc5A7C0yRs+/x6hvcTMuxz4wQ8wqUHRIZNQPdaCSax3gsWYr Kg5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEOhi0xUd9QviFxAFFOsQ4JOu2WPKK3nUh3BCoPTdHQ9Zaj4JP+ 6kNyDfWDbLFz9hB+g6cigWB1P+Lp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPwGUlARCqcvJOiLfTI69oj4O7jtMQdMx0QOyUsjqhTxddj1bh7BhmTpy2q5VGZAYs9Be6KoHg==
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9681:: with SMTP id y123-v6mr2795208iod.97.1531863168062; Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:1232:144:95dd:bab:bdaa:2ee6? ([2001:67c:1232:144:95dd:bab:bdaa:2ee6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f24-v6sm935998ioc.52.2018.07.17.14.32.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Jul 2018 14:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9F0016E4-6642-4A6B-9653-CD9A5CB6C6E2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Message-Id: <745D1A6D-0906-4261-916B-4F9DA0BD5241@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:32:45 -0400
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/I_qYzBzxSfBCthqAyu62ShaJ2vo>
Subject: [CCAMP] MEF services
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:32:51 -0000

Authors,

I wanted to clarify on my comment on the mike regarding aligning with the YANG model definitions in MEF for services. First of all, for reference, please see MEF 58 <https://www.mef.net/Assets/Technical_Specifications/PDF/MEF_58.pdf> for what I am talking about. For the latest set of models, you can see them here <https://github.com/MEF-GIT/YANG-public/tree/master/src/model/standard>.  You will notice that MEF 58 is talking about services as defined at the Legato layer in the LSO Reference Architecture of MEF. This may not correspond to what you are trying to define as a “service” at Layer 1. If that is the case, you can ignore my comment. But do realize that as you do define new service types, that the definition of a service aligns with what is defined in Section 2.1 of RFC 8199 and how MEF views service level models. In particular RFC 8199 says:

   Network Service YANG Modules describe the characteristics of a
   service, as agreed upon with consumers of that service.  That is, a
   service module does not expose the detailed configuration parameters
   of all participating network elements and features but describes an
   abstract model that allows instances of the service to be decomposed
   into instance data according to the Network Element YANG Modules of
   the participating network elements.


A very cursory read of the model tells me that you are talking about ‘coding function’, 'optical_interface’ or ‘uni-list’. Why would a consumer of a service care about a ‘uni-list’ that a service provider maintains, or what ‘optical_interface’ is used.

In either case, a liaison statement from IETF to MEF would be nice to make sure that both parties are aware of each others work.

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com