Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] I-D Action: draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model-00.txt

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

I am not sure what you are picturing when I use the word "architecture".
My intent is a combination of
"an architecture that can suggest and articulate common functionality to be
used by multiple models
 and how the models interconnect" which I loosely refer to as a
"meta-model" plus considerations such
as common conventions that are routing specific and thinking about future
extensibility and features now.

I am not expecting a template of "here's how to write a model"; that seems
like it could be interesting for
netmod to work on.  I know that netmod is working on rfc6087bis and look
forward to seeing the results of
that work.

I am certainly expecting the design team to deliver at least the
"meta-model" part of it before the Prague
IETF.  I am also OF COURSE recommending that the design team considering
existing work that is done
in the space - including the OpenConfig work - and building a design team
including people who are actively
involved in this area.

Whether some of this work makes sense to do in a wiki or live as a stable
RFC is a different question - but
the first point is to get it thought about and written down.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On Mar 19, 2015:12:13 PM, at 12:13 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Lou and Loa,
>
> Thanks for your focus and concern on this.
>
> I share very similar concerns about how to handle the interactions and
> structure between different
> YANG models.  In fact, I am in the process of setting up a routing area
> design team to write
> up a routing yang architecture.  This may also include common conventions
> and recommendations
> for how to handle information to be used by multiple models and so on.
>
>
> Rather than an architecture, I'd suggest something more along the lines of
> a template for building models.
> There are a number of reasons why an architecture is the wrong approach
> here IMHO, but firstly
> time-to-market is of the essence. We don't want a clan of people spending
> the next 18 months chugging out
> what is in effect, a theoretical guide or pattern for how we build
> models.  Secondly, we have a proposal
> on the table from a bunch of operators that have built and are actually
> using the models proposed.
> I would hate to push that aside for what becomes again, a theoretical
> discussion that takes
> 18 months and produces a document.   To be honest, the best approach for
> this would be a wiki page
> that gets pinned on the Yang Doctor's wiki, if you ask me.
>
> --Tom
>
>
> At the Routing WG Chairs lunch, one of the topics will be discussing how
> to coordinate and handle
> the various proposed YANG models and the overlaps.
>
> One of the useful aspects of this particular model is that it's looking at
> it from a "what does it do for me" perspective instead of a "here's what
> the protocol knobs are".  Of course, that doesn't address many
> of the questions around multiple uses of the same technology for different
> purposes or how to handle
> different feature sets being implemented.
>
> I am somewhat reluctant to request breaking up of a model into multiple
> drafts simply to accommodate
> the IETF Working Group structure - if it doesn't also improve the models
> or make it easier to get really
> good reviews.
>
> So, in short - let's have some good discussion on this, work towards
> having an architecture with meta-model
> for at least routing, and see what makes the most sense.
>
> Thanks,
> Alia
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Loa Andersson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Lou,
>>
>> I take this to mean:
>> "Yes, we can take the discussion as suggest below in Dallas, but we also
>>  need a discussion on the [e-mail], possibly before,
>>  during and after the Dallas meeting."
>>
>> I agree to that!
>>
>> /Loa
>>
>>
>> On 2015-03-19 14:59, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/19/2015 6:04 AM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> This of course triggered the obvious question - "What is your plan"?
>>>>
>>>> So what I'd like to to see for draft-openconfig-mpls-consolidated-model
>>>> discussions in Dallas is
>>>>
>>>> - that the discussion on the overall structure goes to the rtgwg
>>>>
>>>> - that the technology specific parts are discussed in the relevant
>>>>     working group; it see the following wg's that (should) have an
>>>>     interest in this
>>>>     - teas
>>>>     - mpls
>>>>     - spring
>>>>     - i2rs (?), this might be more of an interest in the overall
>>>>       structure.
>>>>
>>>> For mpls this discussion will take place on Friday, if we during the
>>>> week can agree on a plan forward, and we need time to socialize that
>>>> I think there are a few minutes available in the mpls meeting do that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the general questions I see / have, which are wider than the scope of
>>> this draft, are:
>>> 1. how does the whole control plane (including te+non-te signaling and
>>> routing) picture fit together and relate to other/existing models?
>>> 2. how do all the different topology/service models fit together?
>>> 3. What is the commonality in the data plane models of MPLS and GMPLS
>>> (LSPs)?
>>>     (Yes this assumes that there isn't a full model per controlled
>>> technology.)
>>>
>>> I think different WGs are/can be involved in addressing these.  As I
>>> said before, I personally care more about these being discussed then
>>> where they are discussed.  I like your plan as it provides a place to
>>> catch any topics not already covered earlier in the week.
>>>
>>> In the interim, it would be good to start on the actual discussions on
>>> this (or whichever appropriate) list.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>> /Loa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2015-03-19 10:24, Loa Andersson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not seen any reaction to this, what is the plan?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Loa
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-03-18 17:45, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like there's a plan afoot to give rtgwg time to discuss this
>>>>>> thread/draft (as well as relive some of the overall time constraints.
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>     My understanding is that the overall structure  &  base document
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be discussed there, while the other WG-specific information /
>>>>>> sub-models
>>>>>> (e.g., LDP, RSVP, TE, SR, ...) will covered in their respective WGs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alia/ADs/Authors,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you confirm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/17/2015 12:35 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RTGWG agenda is already jam packed - no room for any additions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
>> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord
>
>
>