[netmod] Inventory YANG model (entity-MIB)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 06 March 2015 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 039261A1A58 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:48:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, WEIRD_PORT=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 vm8dSooFDTsB for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B9D01A1A43 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:48:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=871822; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425638891; x=1426848491; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject; bh=56Y2RVQFDYxDHMq47+rHEXqRI/rVPgg212J0F46mImo=; b=JT2Z/Xn+QxX4l9Mt25A1H1xClLCH1cgcy119K53lHsKigf4IbhhrLO0D Rzq12+Hdgn244ApJi9SSGuxCcNxwQhUQGqZKaSngRzLVMDuB0IHU1NTYX jZTjWixYYO7HJtEi6DEhOugSVtay40mgYrqUwmvmeS3JrPaEuddVqzGl/ Q=;
X-Files: ebafdgaa.png, ghhaeefj.png : 354005, 279070
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CeBADRhPlU/xbLJq3OYQECAgE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,352,1422921600"; d="png'150?scan'150,208,217,150";a="367328443"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2015 10:48:09 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t26Am4A3030984; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:48:04 GMT
Message-ID: <54F985E2.6020304@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 11:48:02 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010109000901070900060505"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rG0wG4gtSbCMmdm3UXGub7Qo8_A>
Cc: draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory@tools.ietf.org, "i2rs-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <i2rs-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [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: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:48:16 -0000

Dear all,

The I2RS interim meeting yesterday focused on topology.
Let me cut/paste a high level slide, with pointers to the relevant drafts.


If interested, the meeting minutes are at 
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/i2rs-interim-march-5-2015-v-bluesheets

Part of the inventory draft 
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-i2rs-network-inventory/) 
discussion, the overlap with the ENTITY-MIB RFC 6933 was discussed (and 
RFC 7223 btw).


The message was that I2RS should not re-invent something similar to the 
ENTITY-MIB
So, are you aware of any initiatives to "YANGify" the ENTITY-MIB?
It's true that there is a way to translate MIB into YANG with RFC 6643. 
This could be a good start. However, I wonder if a hand-written YANG 
model that closely follows the entPhysical would not be more beneficial.
Is this something we should take on board in NETMOD?

What do you think?

Note: As commented by the I2RS people, indexing is appropriate in the 
MIB module for its original purpose, but may not be for the topology. 
I'm not sure we want to change the indexing just for the topology, but 
the integration within the topology draft should be thought of.

Regards, Benoit