Re: [CCAMP] [netmod] 802.3 Ethernet YANG (802.3cp) and IETF overlap

[Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,


On 23/03/2017 07:56, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I largely agree with the proposals of the team.
>
> I have only one comment / clarification related to the RMON objects 
> which are proposed to be transferred under IEEE 802.3cp. As far as I 
> remember there are some differences between the definitions in the 
> RMON MIB for some of the objects and the Clause 30 definitions.
Unfortunately, yes there are differences.

> What is the approach that you propose to take?
I'm trying to rationalize them all together (at least for the parts of 
the MIB that we want to carry forward into YANG).

Please see attached for a spreadsheet that shows the relationship 
between the proposed 802.3 YANG counters, the existing MIBs (IFMIB, 
RMON, and ETHERNET-LIKE), and 802.3 clause 30.  This doesn't yet cover 
the counters that I plan on adding to draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-04 
(Drop due to invalid destination MAC, of RMON style histogram counters).

There will also be some text added to the 802.3cf draft that should 
explain the relationship, possibly some of it may be lifted directly 
from 802.3.1.



> Include in IEEE 802.3cp only those objects that strictly conform to 
> Clause 30 definitions, or modify / add definitions in Clause 30 in 
> order to accommodate all the RMON statistics? If the later approach is 
> to be taken - is IEEE 802.3cp chartered to make changes or add new 
> definitions in Clause 30 of IEEE 802.3?

A bit of both - mostly the former approach, but with a few missing 
counters hopefully added to clause 30.

Specifically, I hoping that the following counters can be added to 
clause 30:
  Row 17: In PFC frames (used in  ETHERLIKE MIB dot3HCInPFCFrames)
  Row 18: Out PFC frames (used in ETHERLIKE MIB dot3HCOutPFCFrames)
  Row 19: Total Octets received (good & bad) (used in RMON MIB 
etherStatsOctets)
  Row 25: Frames dropped as being too short. (combined value of two RMON 
MIB counters (etherStatsUndersizePkts + etherStatsFragments))

I think that in principal there is some support for adding these to 
clause 30, and the appropriate folks in 802.3 will work out the 
easiest/best mechanism to achieve this.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I'm participating in the 802.3 task force (802.3cf) to produce
>     standard YANG models for Ethernet interfaces and protocols covered
>     by the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group.
>
>     As part of my involvement with that group, I want to highlight a
>     couple of issues that arose in that forum that may be of interest
>     to various WGs in IETF.
>
>     This email, and accompanying slides, represents my personal views,
>     and do not represent any formal IEEE position.  However, both this
>     email and the accompanying slides have been reviewed in an 802.3cf
>     task force meeting, and there were no objections to the content,
>     or my sending of this email to IETF.
>
>     I also raised these issues (with an earlier set of slides) as part
>     of the IETF/IEEE liaison meeting on 31st January, and the
>     consensus was generally supportive of this approach, with the
>     agreed next steps to contact the NETMOD and CCAMP chairs, which I
>     have done, and the WGs (hence this email):
>
>
>     As part of that YANG modelling work, there is an aim to define a
>     clean boundary of what manageability data should be specified
>     within 802.3 and what belongs outside the 802.3 specifications.
>
>     The definition that the task force is converging on is that
>     everything related to Ethernet, covered by 802.3, that can be
>     expressed in terms of the 802.3 clause 30 manageability
>     definitions, should be modeled in 802.3. I.e. broadly everything
>     that is covered by 802.3.1 today.  But any manageability
>     information that cannot be related to clause 30 definitions should
>     be specified outside of 802.3.  Note, where appropriate,
>     additional clause 30 definitions may be added to fix any mistakes
>     or glaring gaps.
>
>
>     To this end, there are a couple of areas between IETF and 802.3
>     that don't necessarily look like they are entirely in the right
>     place, in particular:
>
>     1) The RMON MIB (RFC 2819) defines (along with other non-Ethernet
>     related content) some Ethernet specific statistics that would be
>     better co-located with the Ethernet interface YANG model being
>     defined in 802.3cp. Hence, the proposal is to subsume the
>     appropriate Ethernet statistics from the RMON MIB into a single
>     combined reference set defined in 802.3cp.
>
>     2) The RMON MIB also defines some Ethernet specific statistics
>     that can't be defined as part of 802.3cf because they don't relate
>     to 802.3 clause 30 registers, but are still widely supported by
>     vendors, and should be modeled in YANG.  The proposal is that
>     definitions related to these counters could be added as part of
>     the Ethernet-like module draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-03
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/>,
>     or perhaps a related Ethernet module in the same draft.
>
>     3) The Power-Ethernet MIB (defined in RFC 3621, but also
>     referenced from RFC 7460), was originally specified in IETF, but
>     ownership later transferred to 802.3 (via RFC 7448).  Whilst
>     working on the Power over Ethernet YANG model it has become clear
>     that not all of the attributes defined in the MIB map to the
>     underlying 802.3 clause 30 definitions.  Further, it looks like
>     parts of this YANG model would be better defined as extensions to
>     the Entity YANG model being defined in NETMOD.  The proposal is
>     that the parts of the Power over Ethernet YANG model that can be
>     directly related to clause 30 definitions (e.g.
>     /pethPsePortTable/) should be defined in 802.3cf, but that the
>     remaining parts (e.g., ///pethMainPseObjects /) can hopefully be
>     standardized in IETF.
>
>
>     Do you have any comments, or concerns, on the 3 proposals above?
>
>     Regards,
>     Rob Wilton
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     netmod mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>
>