IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [i2rs] relationship between "draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and "draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Thu, 30 June 2016 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7C912B00D for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.646
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ktKVrY-wBc_4 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F550126579 for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CMY65916; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:15:21 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.177) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:15:18 +0100
Received: from DFWEML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.179]) by DFWEML703-CAH.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.177]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:15:16 -0700
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Thread-Topic: [i2rs] relationship between "draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and "draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?
Thread-Index: AdHSXNyx59TLVxWvQ8i98HJYWSAu6QAtznAAAAAHHnA=
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:15:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657ED93D0@dfweml501-mbb>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657ED8E6F@dfweml501-mbb> <49ba01d1d2d9$6a616900$3f243b00$@ndzh.com>
In-Reply-To: <49ba01d1d2d9$6a616900$3f243b00$@ndzh.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.141.100]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F657ED93D0dfweml501mbb_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090204.57758BEA.00A2, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7880ffa375d6b044c5d6c7dbeb8f1746
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/jBHbetN8dQPtWbvQgO3b19T4G_c>
Cc: "i2rs@ietf.org" <i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] relationship between "draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and "draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:15:27 -0000

Sue,

Both those drafts are about YANG data models of Forwarding Rules based on "L1/L2/L3/L4 header Matching Conditions". Why have two different YANG data models?

p.s. pkt-eca-data-model even have L1 matching, which doesn't makes sense to me. L1 is the transmission bit streams, terminated by the physical layer.

Linda

From: Susan Hares [mailto:shares@ndzh.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:12 AM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [i2rs] relationship between "draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and "draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?

Linda:

The English text may be similar, but the yang data modules are different in the drafts.  Since filters are still under consideration, I wanted to handle draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model separately from the FB-RIB.  The drafts can be merged or left separate.

Is there a reason to merge these drafts?

Sue


From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Linda Dunbar
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:21 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
Subject: [i2rs] relationship between "draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt" and "draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00"?

Sue, qin and Russ,

It seems to me that there are a lot of overlap between the following two drafts:


-        draft-ietf-i2rs-pkt-eca-data-model-00.txt

-        draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00

they are all on forwarding packets based on matching criteria of various packet headers (L2/L3/L4).

Why need two separate IDs?
Can we merge them?

Just curious.

Linda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email