[ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 08 July 2020 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78583A00E0; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.225
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 guyX5Yf5G3KP; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA1D3A00DF; Wed, 8 Jul 2020 10:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.107.91.217;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 13:32:41 -0400
Message-ID: <009e01d6554d$c89662f0$59c328d0$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009F_01D6552C.41858640"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdZVP6iEeWegRC1eSjGbYJt6hcfeqA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200708-4, 07/08/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ieee-ietf-coord/mD53uPN3J66zXVgCICuFL0wFZmE>
Subject: [ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14
X-BeenThere: ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management-level discussions between IEEE and IETF on topics of interest to both SDOs <ieee-ietf-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ieee-ietf-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord>, <mailto:ieee-ietf-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 17:32:49 -0000

Greetings IEEE and IETF coordination team: 

 

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/

 

is being reviewed by the IESG for publication as an RFC.  It is being
proposed by the I2RS WG.

This draft provides a Yang model for L2 logical topologies that is being
combined with L3 logical network models.  This model is being implemented by
3+ vendors.   In this process, we have the following questions that overlap
between IEEE and IETF.   

 

1) Regarding system management  MAC Address - 

 

Where in 802.1Q-2018 do I find the Yang model for the system management port
for a switch? 

By system management, I mean that port that configuration information is
exchanged about.   I do not mean the port that sends LLDP packets. 

 

http://ieee802.org/1/files/public/YANGs/ieee802-dot1q-bridge.yang

 

2)  Where can I find the latest status of yang models for the time sensitive
work in 802.1? 

 

This model considers an L2 port as a termination point which is "in  use"
for traffic, blocking traffic, down (due to hardware) or some other
function.   We wish to determine if time sensitive configurations will
provide another concept for port.  A general explanation would be helpful. 

 

3) Would liaison give me  reading on what status the following references
should be in

draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology?  

 

Ben Kaduk suggests that: 

  a) Normative --> informative   RFC3688 and RFC7951 

  b) Informative--> normative: [IEEE802.1Qcp], RFC7348

 

I'd appreciate your joint opinion on these matters.   We are trying to
follow the best common practices of both IEEE and IETF in this draft.  

 

Susan Hares

Co-chair I2RS

Shepherd for draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology