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

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

My preference wasn’t quite clear in the previous email, so let me state it explicitly - (1), IMO, MPLS base should reside off the root, and for (2) it might be worth dividing the subsequent models as either non-routing or routing, given that MPLS control plane e.g. LDP would be routing dependent, whereas static LSP _could_ not be. 

For (2), a hierarchy something like his works out (where non-routing is nothing but MPLS base)

	MPLS Base
		<non-routing>
			Static LSP
		<routing>
			Static LSP
			Dynamic LSP - LDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE, 


However, it creates an interesting challenge for aligning the yang models and while keeping the hierarchy simple.


Is it worth having a focused team figuring out MPLS base staying off the root, whereas routing-dependent MPLS control plane protocols e.g. LDP staying off routing?

-- 
Cheers,
Rajiv Asati
Distinguished Engineer, Cisco







-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Asati <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, February 5, 2016 at 8:58 AM
To: Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [mpls] discussion on a common top for yang models related to MPLS

>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 as is, or get MPLS base on an independent path (off of (IP) routing/routing-protocol) and work out the subsequent models.
>
>
>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