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

Susan Hares <> Thu, 09 July 2020 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E743A0948; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.523
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URG_BIZ=0.573, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0_8YuaWgOTBe; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89B473A0952; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 01:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: "Susan Hares" <>
To: "'Qin Wu'" <>, "'Glenn Parsons'" <>, <>
Cc: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 04:30:16 -0400
Message-ID: <007001d655cb$2cf53dc0$86dfb940$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0071_01D655A9.A5E9DF50"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGXHpZhMxk26VUTMdGsDJqzuf2Zfql9Sx0w
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200708-8, 07/08/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology-14
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Management-level discussions between IEEE and IETF on topics of interest to both SDOs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 08:30:34 -0000



I¡¯m sorry you feel disappointed in the coordination between IETF and IEEE.


Please note that this work predates your work with the Yang modules (first
WG draft is April, 2015), and should have been mentioned in these
discussions since that time.  This WG draft is not a recent event.  Where
and how the coordination teams missed this draft is something you can
discuss with IETF leadership.   From my viewpoint, my understanding is that
the IETF-IEEE interactions were to be placed through this IETF-IEEE
committee for liaison.   Members of the IESG were to pass information
regarding our drafts to this committee. 


Since I was asked to double check this coordination, I went directly to the
email list (per Alvaro Retana).  In my work as a WG chair, I have repeatedly
tried to get the IETF side of this IETF-IEEE committee to validate our work,
and to coordinate with IEEE 802.1.    


If you are going to review this document at your IEEE meeting,  please be
aware it is a logical topology that creates a virtual model of layer 2
networks for network management purposes.  This virtual model attaches to a
virtual layer 3 model.   As Qin mentioned, I recommend you RFC 8345 and send
me questions if the difference between the physical construct (IEEE) and
this virtual topology (IETF NM) is unclear.   As Qin states, this is not an
overlap with IEEE models but an virtual topology built on top of an existing
IETF NM model.  We have used IEEE Yang models and definitions where ever
possible as IEEE models came into being (2015-2018) in the L2 model.  


Prior to sending this query, I found and downloaded the files you mentioned.
(I¡¯m an IEEE member and a past participant in IEEE 802.1) .  


On my question 1:   I am asking for clarity on Table 48-7, page 29-30 in


The Bridge structure has ¡°name¡± (r-w), ¡°address¡± (r-w), type (r-w),
ports (12.4) and uptime (12.4).   This structure is required for bridges.


In deployed switches, there is a sys-mac-address with the ability to have a
VLAN-ID attached.   How does IEEE 802.1 view this difference?   As far as
the Yang module (dated 2018), is this functional a vendor augmentation to
the base model?  


Do you wish to provide input on my questions 2 and 3?  


Thank you, Susan Hares  



From: Qin Wu [] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 10:06 PM
To: Glenn Parsons; Susan Hares;
Subject: RE: [ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with



Confused with your statement, a few clarifications:

1.L2 Topology model is not L2 configuration model overlapping with IEEE
work, L2 Topology is built on topo of network topology YANG data model
(i.e.,RFC8345)defined by IETF. 

2.L2 topology model has already respected IEEE work and reuse data types
defined by IEEE 802.1 related YANG data model work.



·¢¼þÈË: Glenn Parsons [] 
·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2020Äê7ÔÂ9ÈÕ 9:57
ÊÕ¼þÈË: Susan Hares <>om>;
Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with


I will start by expressing my disappointment.


There has been a YANG item on our coordination list for years.  We have been
updating IETF on our YANG module work and our issues.  We have been
integrating IEEE work into the IETF YANG catalog as drafts and final
approved modules.  This IETF L2 YANG module clearly overlaps with IEEE 802.1
and yet as far as I can tell this is the first indication of that to us.  It
is not even in your YANG catalog as a draft.  Hours before your final
approval, there is an urgent request for comment.    I would instead request
that this be deferred by IESG to give 802.1 time to review the module at our
plenary next week.


That said, all the IEEE 802.1 YANG modules are  on our website: 

And they are also in the YANG catalog github repository.

Published modules:

802.1 Draft modules per project:


Clause 12.4 in 802.1Q-2018 is the bridge management entity clause, I suspect
you are asking about the bridges/bridge/address in the YANG module.


IEEE 802.1Qcp-2018 should be normative (it is freely available  The document should be
clearer than just looking at the modules, for example Table 48-7 shows
Generic bridge management information.






Glenn Parsons

Chair, IEEE 802.1 WG





From: ieee-ietf-coord <> On Behalf Of Susan
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 1:33 PM
Subject: [ieee-ietf-coord] Aid with


Greetings IEEE and IETF coordination team:


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 ¨C 


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.


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



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