Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps just adding to the confusion, here is what the WG charter
says:

    o The ability to extract information about topology from the network.
      Injection and creation of topology will not be considered as a work
      item. Such topology-related models will be based on a generic
      topology model to support multiple uses; the generic topology model
      should support topology extension for non-I2RS uses.

And as a milestone:

  Dec 2016 - Request Publication of Protocol Independent Topology Data Models

/js

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:06:04PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Robert and Martin: 
> 
> I agree with Robert that the current implementations of the ODL topology
> models are handled as part of the configuration data store with ephemeral
> state.   I will point out that these implementation are pre-standards
> implementations of the I2RS YANG Data model.  
> 
> While standardizing the topology data models, the I2RS WG have been asked to
> align with the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.txt NETMOD WG
> document.  This NETMOD WG document moves the I2RS ephemeral data store from
> configuration data store to a Control Plane data store.   If we follow this
> draft, the I2RS Topology models are part of the I2RS ephemeral data store.
> If you disagree with the placement of the Topology data models, please
> indicate this to the NETMOD WG and to Benoit.  Could you propose a way that
> you would see the ephemeral state working with the configuration data store
> to the NETMOD WG?   
> 
> Quite frankly, I feel a bit of whip-lash on this topic.   NETMOD WG asks for
> Control Plane Data store.  You ask for configuration data store (which was
> the I2RS initial proposal).   It is possible for either one to work for I2RS
> Topology models - if the right details are taken care of.   How do we make
> progress on choosing one method so we can write the I2RS Topology Models
> security considerations.? 
> 
> Sue 
>   
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Varga [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:11 PM
> To: Martin Bjorklund; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> On 01/23/2017 09:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> I'm pulling your questions to the top of this email. 
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> Question 1: Ok.  Just to make sure I understand this correctly - 
> >> these topology models are intended to be I2RS-specific, and they 
> >> cannot be used for any other purpose.  If anyone needs a general 
> >> topology model outside of the I2RS protocol, they will have to design 
> >> their own model.  Is this correct?
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> Response 1:  Not really.  
> > Ok, so are you saying that the models are in fact generic, and can be 
> > used outside of I2RS?  I.e., they *can* be used with the normal 
> > configuration datastores?
> > 
> 
> From implementation experience, yes, they can be used for storing
> configuration. OpenDaylight uses (an ancient predecessor of)
> yang-network-topo to store configure details about devices in its managed
> networks.
> 
> Regards,
> Robert
> 
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>