Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-09.txt

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 6:05 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
> I've no issues with Sue checking with the ADs, but it might be helpful
to point out:
>  - There is already a regular IEEE/IETF liaison meeting that
invariable includes discussion on YANG issues.  The sub-interface VLAN
YANG model was part of this meeting for several years (due to technology
overlap).
>  - The VLAN definitions are in ieee802-dot1q-types.yang because (i)
that is what we asked them to do, and (ii) they own the technology, and
want to maintain control over it.

Rob

Sounds good as long as people know about it and know what to do.

VLAN ID appears in many YANG I-D, in such as CCAMP and BESS.  CCAMP have
a types module which defines VLAN ID.  I see a comment in the model
about overlap with I2RS and a question as to whether they should import
the I2RS definition so it seems that they know of the I2RS work but
would seem ignorant - like me - of any  activity by the IEEE in this
area.

It is fine for the IEEE to want ownership of their technology, as the
IETF wants ownership of YANG and base definitions of types and models,
but that brings a responsibility to liaise with others what is
happening.  I often see this happening with ITU-T but not with IEEE.  It
may be that the IEEE is communicating with the IETF and the failure is
with the IETF in disseminating the information but to me there is a
failure, of different WG, different AD, reinventing the wheel which may
be fine if it is the IETF's wheel but perhaps not when it is another
SDO.

And there are still practical issues with YANG models of another SDO of
tools that give validation failures, modules not registered and so on.

Tom Petch

>  - Generally, I think that IEEE and IETF currently have good form
working together.  Of course, that could change in the future, but I
suspect that if the IEEE decided to completely ditch YANG then I would
expect them to be willing to find a solution for
ieee802-dot1q-types.yang as well.
>
> Also looking at this from the other direction, if we want to redefine
these types then I think that we would risk slowing down the draft to
get permission from the IEEE 802.1 WG that they are happy for us to
redefine these types (my initial instinct from my previous interactions
is that IEEE 802.1 WG would probably not be happy - although of course I
do not and cannot speak for them!)
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i2rs <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of tom petch
> > Sent: 21 August 2019 17:38
> > To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; 'Qin Wu' <[e-mail]>;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-
> > 09.txt
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:35 PM
> >
> > Tom:
> >
> > Would you like me to check with the NM/OPS AD as well on this point?
> > They
> > may have an agreement with the IEEE folks on yang models.
> >
> > <tp>
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > Yes please.
> >
> > I have posted to Netmod where Rob Wilton thinks that it is fine and
copied
> > it to Scott Mansfield.  My unease is rather vague that the IETF and
IEEE
> > may take separate paths, on YANG, at some point. I see this not as
> > technical, where IEEE clearly have the skills in 802, but rather as
> > political or management, noting that the tools do not cope with
this, as
> > Qin has found, that the module does not appear in the IANA registry
(and
> > cannot from 802.1Q as it is RFC Required), that Rob sees the
reference as
> > 801.1Qcp and not 802.1Q and so on.  We are making the IETF dependent
on
> > something we have no control and little influence over.
> >
> > I would like an AD to say that they can see the issues and are
content
> > that there will be no problem in future (I may turn round in five
years
> > time and say 'I told you so' but that is business as usual, for me).
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Cheerily, Sue
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tom petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 4:53 AM
> > To: Qin Wu; [e-mail]
> > Cc: Susan Hares
> >
> > Qin
> >
> > You had a note in -07 about whether or not to import definitions
from
> > draft-ietf-softwire; and now I see that -09 imports definitions from
IEEE
> > 802.1Q.
> >
> > Um.  Different.
> >
> > I have seen this before but in an I-D that AFAICT never progressed.
> >
> > I am uncertain what the implications of this are, in terms of the
> > evolution of the model, of the YANG language and so on, given the
> > different philosophies of the IETF and IEEE.  I think that it needs
a
> > wider review than it will get on this list so I will flag this to
NETMOD
> > and perhaps again at IETF Last call.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Qin Wu" <[e-mail]>
> > To: <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>; "tom petch"
<[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 8:08 AM
> >
> > > v-09 is posted to address Tom's comments.
> > > The diff is:
> > >
> >
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topolo
> > gy-09
> > > Becuase datatracker pyang integration tool issue, Data model
> > "ieee802-dot1q-types" can not been found
> > > And imported into the model defined in this draft.
> > >
> > > -Qin
> > > -----邮件原件-----
> > > 发件人: I-D-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
> > [e-mail]
> > > 发送时间: 2019年8月19日 15:04
> > > 收件人: [e-mail]
> > > 抄送: [e-mail]
> > > 主题: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-09.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System
WG of
> > the IETF.
> > >
> > >         Title           : A YANG Data Model for Layer-2 Network
> > Topologies
> > >         Authors         : Jie Dong
> > >                           Xiugang Wei
> > >                           Qin Wu
> > >                           Mohamed Boucadair
> > >                           Anders Liu
> > > Filename        : draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-09.txt
> > > Pages           : 31
> > > Date            : 2019-08-19
> > >
> > > Abstract:
> > >    This document defines a YANG data model for Layer 2 network
> > >    topologies.
> > >
> > > Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
> > >
> > >    Please update these statements within the document with the RFC
> > >    number to be assigned to this document:
> > >
> > >    o  "This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX;"
> > >
> > >    o  "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Layer-2 Network
Topologies";
> > >
> > >    o  reference: RFC XXXX
> > >
> > >    Please update the "revision" date of the YANG module.
> > >
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > >
> >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topolog
> > y/
> > >
> > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > >
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-09
> > >
> >
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-to
> > pology-09
> > >
> > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > >
> >
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topolo
> > gy-09
> > >
> > >
> > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> > tools.ietf.org.
> > >
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > I-D-Announce mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
> > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > i2rs mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
>