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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for your feedback. Please see my replies inline:
>....
>>
>> 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.
>
> The inventory model was motivated by some discussion in the I2RS interim, and we are open to move this work to Netmod if people are more interested to do this work here.
> As Jeff said, simple conversion of MIB to Yang is not exactly our goal. Hopefully we can make good use of Yang to build a base inventory model, which is extensible with augmentation to build more specific models.
>


I am not that concerned where the work gets done, but rather with
SNMP integration.  Some vendors have invested quite a lot of resources
supporting that particular classification system.  The overhead and complexity
of supporting 2 inventory systems seems rather unjustified.


>> 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.
>
> To my understanding, SMI to Yang translation gives you read-only models, while with Yang we can do both read and write. I'd agree that the inventory yang model should not limit its scope for monitoring, and we need to discuss what configurations should be considered as part of the inventory model. We'd appreciate your contributions on both aspects. Thanks.
>

Inventory is usually read-only.
Annotations can be added with indexing (not directly within the
operational data).

I would suggest starting by explaining why the
existing SMIv2 data cannot be used (via SMI to YANG translation)
and explain what new features that are needed by I2RS
in order to write to the RIB.

> Best regards,
> Jie

Andy

>
>> >> > 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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen |
>> Germany
>> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > netmod mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod