Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Taxonomy of YANG models

Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net> Thu, 15 January 2015 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <deanb@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D1C1A899E for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:15:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_38=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 UKdFDROOq2fB for <rtg-yang-coord@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:15:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0707.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::707]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B351A89AD for <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:15:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BN1PR05MB421.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.139) by BN1PR05MB471.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.63.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.53.17; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:14:52 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.148) by BN1PR05MB421.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.59.20; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:14:50 +0000
Received: from BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.161]) by BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.161]) with mapi id 15.01.0059.007; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:14:50 +0000
From: Dean Bogdanovic <deanb@juniper.net>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [Rtg-yang-coord] Taxonomy of YANG models
Thread-Index: AdAv5qA+kNZmT4o1RDmqZvRRQIG18QBIaoSA
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:14:50 +0000
Message-ID: <FEBEE603-6835-4CB4-9BB7-A4F0967FE6AD@juniper.net>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846A04EC@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA846A04EC@nkgeml501-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.12]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=deanb@juniper.net;
x-dmarcaction-test: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(3005004); SRVR:BN1PR05MB421; UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB421;
x-forefront-prvs: 0457F11EAF
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(377454003)(199003)(24454002)(37854004)(189002)(97736003)(50986999)(62966003)(76176999)(92566002)(50226001)(82746002)(57306001)(66066001)(19580405001)(16236675004)(230783001)(15975445007)(102836002)(110136001)(68736005)(46102003)(33656002)(77156002)(2950100001)(2900100001)(19580395003)(87936001)(86362001)(101416001)(122556002)(2656002)(106356001)(40100003)(36756003)(64706001)(99286002)(83716003)(19617315012)(170073001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB421; H:BN1PR05MB424.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FEBEE60368354CB49BB7A4F0967FE6ADjunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Jan 2015 21:14:50.1205 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR05MB421
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB471;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-yang-coord/fkHTWUURkqKGzIgWVhj0PtG5Uqo>
Cc: "rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org" <rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>, David Sinicrope <david.sinicrope@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Rtg-yang-coord] Taxonomy of YANG models
X-BeenThere: rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "\"List to discuss coordination between the Routing related YANG models\"" <rtg-yang-coord.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-yang-coord/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord>, <mailto:rtg-yang-coord-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:15:17 -0000

Qin,

I highly agree that classification is needed. Have few questions for you:

What you have listed is more a nomenclature then taxonomy/classification

Is your goal to achieve classification within routing area or across IETF?

For the classification, I would suggest to classify models broadly into
config
and
service models

Config models can be classified into standard and vendor proprietary models and service models can be classified into service components and service model.

Example
BGP config model

There is a common standard BGP config model and proprietary vendor model.

Service component is functional BGP config needed for a service, like Pseudowire MPLS L2VPN, which would be service model.

Once we can agree on such classification, we can discuss as next step hierarchical tree for models based on the above classification.

Dean
P.S. I'm in process of writing draft that explains to more details data model classification as above

On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:41 AM, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com<mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>> wrote:

Hi,
David and I talked about taxonomy of YANG model recently. I have applied such kind of taxonomy to the YANG models Summary table available at:
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgYangCoordSummary#
e.g., we classify models in the summary table into several topic groups:
*  Topic Groups:
o a. IP ROUTING (Core routing, ISIS, OSPF,etc)
o b. MPLS (MPLS-TE, MPLS-TP, GMPLS,LDP,etc)
o c. Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE, ISIS-TE, OSPF-TE,PCEP, etc)
o d. Data Plane Encapsulation (NVO3, SFC,Softwire,L2TPEXT)
o e. Service (IP VPN, ETH VPN, PW Service,etc)
o f. I2RS (RIB, Topo,etc)
o g. OAM (LIME, BFD, TRILL OAM, MPLS OAM,etc)
o h. Miscellaneous (QoS, ACL, SYSLOG, SNMP,etc)
We believe the taxonomy of YANG models is important and but needs more discussion on the list. Let us know if this Topic Group classification makes sense to you or you have any other input or correction.
Regards!
-Qin&David


_______________________________________________
Rtg-yang-coord mailing list
Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org<mailto:Rtg-yang-coord@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-yang-coord