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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

"Susan Hares" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Martin: 
> 
>  
> 
> I'm sorry if misunderstood your comments regarding the
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.txt.  The reason the answer is
> unclear is that it depends on the context of the question. 
> 
>  
> 
> .         If you ask if the pre-standardization I2RS Yang Topology models
> (basic and L3)  implemented are part of the configuration data store, the
> answer is yes - AFAIK. 

This is not my question.

> .         If you ask if the WG LC Topology models are approved to be part of
> the configuration data store, my understanding was no.   I2RS WG was to
> abide by the decision of NETMOD WG on which data store I2RS modules were
> placed in. 

Yes, this is my question.  And my concern is that even if your
understanding is that they are not designed to be part of the
configuration datastores, this fact is not mentioned in the drafts.

> If you are concerned the implementation varies from the standardized, please
> express this to Benoit Claise.   Based on your comments on my email thread,
> I will be brief in my answers today.  

This is not my concern.


/martin



> 
>  
> 
> Sue 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:35 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [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)
> 
>  
> 
> "Susan Hares" < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Martin: 
> 
> > 
> 
> > Your statement "One problem is that relying on the solution in
> 
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is a bit premature - in fact, 
> 
> > that document does not yet provide any details at all on the I2RS 
> 
> > ephemeral data store." This statement is not what I understood from IETF
> 98 or the netmod
> 
> > ADs.   I guess your objection to this data model falls into Benoit Claise
> 
> > (AD) and the NETMOD folks to answer. 
> 
>  
> 
> Why do you think that I have any objection to
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.  Please re-read what I wrote.
> 
>  
> 
> My objection regards your statement:
> 
>  
> 
>    1) I2RS Data models do not utilize the configuration data store, 
> 
>  
> 
> If this is true it needs to be clarified in the document.
> 
>  
> 
> After all these emails back and forth, it is still not clear whether this
> statement is true or not.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> /martin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> > 
> 
> > Sue Hares
> 
> > 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > From: i2rs [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Martin 
> 
> > Bjorklund
> 
> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:26 PM
> 
> > To:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> 
> > Cc:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail];
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail];
> 
> >  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail];  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail]; 
> 
> >  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail];
> <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail];
> <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> 
> > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> 
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
> 
> > 
> 
> > "Susan Hares" < <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]> 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).
> 
> > 
> 
> > Not really; I ask for clarification.
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 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.?
> 
> > 
> 
> > One problem is that relying on the solution in
> 
> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is a bit premature - in fact, 
> 
> > that document does not yet provide any details at all on the I2RS 
> 
> > ephemeral datastore.
> 
> > 
> 
> > So I see two alternatives.  Either wait with these documents, or 
> 
> > publish them with their datamodels as is (i.e., no new additional 
> 
> > notes), for the existing protocols and architecure.  This would allow 
> 
> > them to be implemented just like any other YANG data model.  This 
> 
> > would mean that the normal YANG security considerations guidelines should
> be followed.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > /martin
> 
> > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > Sue
> 
> > >   
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > > From: Robert Varga [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]]
> 
> > > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:11 PM
> 
> > > To: Martin Bjorklund;  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> 
> > > Cc:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail];
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail];
> 
> > >  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail];  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail]; 
> 
> > >  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [e-mail];  <mailto:[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
> 
> > > 
> 
> > > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> 
> > i2rs mailing list
> 
> >  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> 
> >  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
> 
> > 
>