Re: [Idr] YANG requirements for IDR drafts (was Re: draft-head-idr-bgp-ls-isis-fr-01 - WG adoption call (6/6 to 6/20))

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

Many thx for your note. As I clarified to Sue my question was really about
LSR WG not IDR :)

And the trigger was Gunter's claim that his employer's OS is already
sending content of LSDB over YANG.

So I was a bit puzzled what happens with new extensions if they like ISIS
reflection if they do not contain the YANG model from day one ? How is that
data being encoded if at all ?

That answer is also important to alternative to BGP-LS discussion but let's
have a separate discussion on this in the coming weeks.

Best,
R.


On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 10:28 PM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2022, at 6:56 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Isn't the YANG section a requirement for all protocol extension
> documents before they are sent for publications these days ?
>
>
> We're not yet to the point where extensions to YANG modules are part of
> base IETF work, but we're probably going to need to have that discussions
> soon across IETF.
>
> This year will see base YANG modules for a number of protocols done.  I
> had hoped I could contribute toward the BGP YANG module getting done closer
> to start of year than not, the BGP module is more likely to be complete
> this fall.[1]
>
> Once we have the base modules out, augmentations for them covering various
> extensions will make sense.  Prior to the publication of the base modules,
> we wouldn't have had the documents advance due to MISREF dependencies.
>
> Once our base module is out, we'll have need of a number of small
> augmentation modules to fill in the missing features.  If you're looking to
> help with that work, there's probably room to start writing some drafts
> now.  I think the BGP YANG module is structurally solid for most
> configuration and operational state.  Policy is the remaining large piece
> of work.
>
> That said, I think we'll find trying to write YANG for BGP-LS challenging.
>
> The reason I am asking this is in fact in light of the other discussions
> we have on IDR list where at least one mode of link state state
> advertisement can be done using YANG encoding. Is YANG section optional in
> LSR WG documents which define new protocol extensions and new functionality
> ? If an implementation uses YANG to push LSDB how the new TLVs defined in
> the draft are going to be shared across ?
>
>
> I think your broader question about what a streaming protocol for IGP
> state looks like is probably best addressed in those threads.  But, as
> above, it's going to be an interesting modeling exercise.
>
> -- Jeff
>
>