[netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity

"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> Fri, 29 July 2016 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <bart.bogaert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EDE12D5CC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:05:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ciVuKXfSrSDU for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE04212D663 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 1D9B56FC0B1AD for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:05:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u6TE5cWJ002588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:05:38 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u6TE5TPZ010427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:05:37 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA09.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.95]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:04:58 +0200
From: "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com>
To: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BBF extensions to ietf-entity
Thread-Index: AdHpoi/h3dfqTKzQR3WYPaIL6IHWCg==
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:04:57 +0000
Message-ID: <D62E05768DBAFF42A72B9F4954476D65010EA9ACC8@FR712WXCHMBA09.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.40]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg="SHA1"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B0_01D1E9B2.F36DB9C0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/qEpQcXKGS5xYAXVzbknvbLTHEzQ>
Subject: [netmod] BBF extensions to ietf-entity
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:05:43 -0000

I would like to bring this to the ietf-entity group.  Currently BBF is
proposing to add new RW leafs to the entity object.  This is done in the
context of plugable entities and hence it means that when an operator (via a
NC client) configures a plugable item it is required to define the entity
type.  For this reason additional RW attributes are needed.  Two of the new
leafs are class and contained-in (same as the RO class leaf). 

-          class: we think that the class leaf needs to be mandatory but
adding this via an augment is not possible as we can't add a mandatory leaf
via an augment.  Making class implicit for the client based on "some
information" exchanged between device vendors and management applications is
maybe not such a sound approach.

-          contained-in: for plugable items contained-in requires to be
mandatory too as a plugable item can't be "floating" in the device.  But we
then hit a problem for the 'top-level' entity which not contained in
anything (and 'fooling' the model by having it pointing to itself is not
allowed).  Contained-in can't be derived by the NC server: what to do if 2
entities of the same class are preprovisioned (together with ports and
interfaces related to subscribers)?  We need to be sure that the subscribers
are on the intended ports.

 

This would mean that the ietf-entity model would require a revision to add
leafs for these plugable items.  What is the best way to address this?

 

Best regards - Vriendelijke groeten,

Bart Bogaert

Broadband-Access System Architect Data

Contact number +32 3 2408310 (+32 477 673952)

 

NOKIA

Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
Fortis 220-0002334-42
VAT BE 0404 621 642 Register of Legal Entities Antwerp



<<
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If
you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any
disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any
action based on it, is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of its
author.
>>