Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]>]

Loa,

I definitely agree (co-author hat off, and user hat on). Avoiding duplication and doing better organization would indeed be a good thing to do.   

1) If MPLS base model (and subsequent models - LDP, TE etc.) augments the (IP) routing/routing-protocol, then it might not well apply to GMPLS. Is there an existing thought-process on this topic? 

Either ignore the above and have GMPLS argument mpls base model, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol).


2) In terms of hierarchy, is the below envisioned?

	MPLS base => Static LSP and dynamic LSP
		MPLS static LSP => 
		MPLS dynamic LSP => 	
			LDP
			mLDP (MP)
			TE (RSVP-TE P2P)
			TE (RSVP-TE P2MP)			    

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv  





-----Original Message-----
From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 7:34 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

>All,
>
>We have had discussion among the MPLS, TEAS and CCAMP working group
>chairs - but as individual contributors, with chair half off. We agree
>that this discussion should be taken to the working group(s).
>
>The YANG models for MPLS and GMPLS are quite rapidly taking shape. MPLS
>and GMPLS technologies have traditionally been very close, but their
>development has been a bit disjoint. For the YANG models we would like
>to minimize duplication of models/work and think the structure should
>have a common the top,  with specific technologies augmented below.
>
>The structure in general as well as the YANG model at the common top
>needs to be the generic and aligned across the output of at least
>CCAMP, MPLS and TEAS working groups. There has been good work 
>progressing on TE specifics, e.g., see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te, but
>other areas remain. On the LDP side of the house draft-raza-mpls-
>ldp-mldp-yang is rapidly progressing towards working group adoption.
>
>The models defined in draft-saad-mpls-static-yang could serve as the
>start on filling some of the remaining gaps; covering core xMPLS
>definitions and static LSPs.  There are a number of ways to make the
>structure intuitive and generic, and serve as a foundation for
>technology specific models.  -- This effort can be viewed as the same
>type of work that was done for TE, see draft-ietf-teas-yang-te.
>
>We think it would be a good idea  if the authors and the  WG considers
>how to structure xMPLS definitions and static LSPs models to best
>foster common use across the different related models being worked on 
>across  different WGs.
>
>We are sending this mail in hopes of getting this discussion started.
>
>Thank you,
>Lou and Loa
>-- 
>
>
>Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls