Re: [netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 09 March 2015 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F531A90DE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ilNmZmqraG3e for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) (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 00E041A9088 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lams18 with SMTP id s18so10615255lam.9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=h+L8N2cbikNYPwbZtgtLo0kjcqAg30owYVYQBA8N0cg=; b=TAclSTJ6B191zqGX+iVHL7MTU94kmUH+Fpb18ZfrANWqunF7Lz9rn3+ilvcz9PGPSj CJ/H061jsJ8G6msFYx7pOIGHTYC8SBgKZFBoOQVuCc4QDOkBCqzYKIKayr1gpzhCHbbG a0KUk8Fmehpv1r61zKpE6D0kFRkHzeEFhX/cEwN73yHUagXDmBHi+oueLgjmZYvGCQGE 7g9jdSx4+QQiVUbVW/xd99aEkyO8nMBiZcvgtir7Maz+4QQyIqrCzh6zGGisGvc9vTK2 /To1KzdpmcJU8k7Dgxt9N9vj0m526wU8A2KGmZlOdvsxwnUDGdcMF3tYrPubjkHpVrYt F2Hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnY4AWyZApXEN3XSlP5e+LyjZgAueOfVKR+gdnaOEDEyHjEEUf5C2aKjrgPj5VR0d/z8cId
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.64.193 with SMTP id q1mr26950303lbs.88.1425921852276; Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.144.36 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150308202910.GA2276@elstar.local>
References: <54F985E2.6020304@cisco.com> <20150306110536.GA73575@elstar.local> <20150308190837.GA12948@pfrc> <20150308202910.GA2276@elstar.local>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:24:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTS_t3A1Uyv2pAsNiOEnMOb9KiRYYVa8jiR5ZVSBsO4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>, draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory@tools.ietf.org, "i2rs-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <i2rs-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bSk5yNQCONh8Eo-_JooQv-Di5GU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 17:24:25 -0000

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder
<j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 03:08:37PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> [speaking largely as a contributor and not i2rs-chair]
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:05:36PM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> > My first question is (perhaps not surprising) whether inventory falls
>> > into the I2RS charter, I2RS = interface to the routing system. That
>> > said, RFC 6643 gives you a read-only translation. There are not many
>> > read-write objects in the ENTITY-MIB so perhaps this is good enough
>> > for now. I guess it would help what I2RS needs to know in order to
>> > make the interface to the routing system work.
>>
>> As discussed later in thread, having this work owned by netmod is fine with
>> I2RS.
>>
>> The structure of the generic topology draft is leading to interesting
>> questions about how information present in that model can link to higher and
>> lower layers.  As seen in the I2RS presentations at the most recent interim,
>> this eventually leads to questions like "inventory".  I also raised the
>> question about tunnels which will lead to other models as well.
>>
>> The fact that the IETF already has good models for some of these things, the
>> ENTITY-MIB as an example, is good.  However, simple conversion of MIBs to
>> yang modules are likely to result in models that are good MIB replacements,
>> but might not be well tailored to re-use elsewhere.  Since much of the
>> motivation is for re-use, re-use is the discussion I would suggest is most
>> important.
>>
>> As an example, SNMP tables probably should be converted into yang groupings.
>> There's also the matter of indexing of such conversions may not be fully
>> appropriate for such re-use and alternate indexes may be helpful.
>
> Nobody is insisting on an SNMP translation but whatever is done better
> allows export via the ENTITY-MIB as well - things need to be aligned
> at least. I note that many of the things you mention are not part of
> draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory-00.txt either.
>

I start to worry about I2RS boiling the ocean when I see
inventory data models in that WG. I question the value
of converting every OID to a YANG identity, or
making gratuitous name changes to every leaf.

Perhaps an SMI to YANG translation of the ENTITY-MIB will
be a good enough starting point. I prefer to see IETF YANG work
focus on configuration, rather than reinvent monitoring solutions
that have been deployed for many years.



>> > PS: I personally would have preferred if generic topology and perhaps
>> >     inventory would have split off into a short-lived targeted WG
>> >     instead of doing all of this in I2RS but it seems leadership has
>> >     already decided that I2RS is the home for all of this.
>>
>> [speaking as one of the i2rs-chairs]
>>
>> Topology was one of the use cases that was in-charter and we're not looking
>> to significantly expand our charter work.  But one thing we've noted over
>> the life of the group is that there has been a lot of push for micro-WG to
>> be formed for various yang efforts.  I personally believe we're better off
>> with some owning WG taking on the task but handling it within the context of
>> a design team.  The overhead of a full WG is likely not merited.
>>
>> Which WG the design team reports to is, of course, up for discussion.
>>
>
> What was in the original I2RS charter was routing topology export
> (read-only). Going from there to a generic topology model (which
> likely should not be limited to config false) is quite a step. I
> personally find it sub-optimal to do the generic model in WG A and
> several extensions of the generic model in WG B plus some more
> extensions in WG C, most likely crossing IETF areas. The coordination
> resulting from this will most likely slow things down.
>
> /js
>

Andy

> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod