Re: [Teas] [i2rs] WG LC for Topology (10/1 to 10/14)

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Xufeng, Alex,

Thank you for taking the effort to work toward getting aligned as discussed in last meeting.   I have some comments on some of the conclusions.

Could you share a bit more on reasons behind Point 3 conclusion?

For points 4 and 5, I think they are related. My understanding is that for ietf-network, it does not follow the method taken by YANG modules such as ietf-interface and ietf-te-topology, in which each ¨Crw leaf will have a corresponding ¨Cro leaf. Instead, it choose to use the ¡°server-provided¡± attribute to say whether all the leafs in the module is configurable or state. I am not sure I understand the conclusion of these two points. Do you agree that both methods are acceptable?

One last comment on point 6: is this for future-proofness or you have already have some attributes in mind that can apply to all networks?

Thank you,
Xian

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Xufeng Liu
Sent: 2015Äê10ÔÂ9ÈÕ 4:15
To: Susan Hares; [e-mail]
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] WG LC for Topology (10/1 to 10/14)

Hi Folks,

The following is an update on the ongoing I2RS<=>TE Topology alignment discussion (between the authors of the TE Topology model and Alex).

The issues / solutions that are currently being discussed are:

I2RS Generic Network Topology Model (draft-ietf-yang-network-topo):

1.      Some groupings in ietf-network.yang and ietf-network-topology.yang cannot be used in augmenting module because of missing name spaces, such as ¡°path "/network/network-id" at line 42 of ietf-network.yang.
Solution: Proposed fixes have been sent to Alex to verify.



2.      ¡°leaf network-ref¡± in ietf-network-topology.yang:169, 220, is causing pyang validation errors.
Solution: Alex will check the errors.



3.      Can the group of schedule attributes be moved from ietf-te-topology.yang to ietf-network-topology.yang?
Solution: We agreed to keep them in ietf-te-topology.yang.



4.      How to support state branch in augmenting module?
Solution: Keep base model ietf-network-topology.yang as is. In the augmenting module, for each entity like topology, node and link, create a config container for configuration attributes and a state container for operational state attributes.



5.      Should ¡°server-provided¡± flag be used to block user operation on read-only entities?
Solution: Keep base model ietf-network-topology.yang as is. TE topology will use other means to achieve such a purpose.



6.      Should I2RS Generic Network Topology model have a top-level container? The benefit of doing so is to provide an augmentation target node to define attributes global to all networks.
Solution: I2RS Generic Network Topology module authors will consider making ¡°/networks¡± as the top level container.

L3 Topology Model (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology)

1.      L3 Topology Model should have references to TE Topology model, so that the related TE information can be properly retrieved, when L3 topology and TE topology are congruent.
Solution: L3 Topology Model authors will need to update the model and draft to include these.

L2 Topology Model (draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-topology)

1.      L2 Topology Model should have references to TE Topology model, so that the related TE information can be properly retrieved, when L2 topology and TE topology are congruent.
Solution: This needs to be discussed with L2 Topology Model authors.

Regards,
- Xufeng (on behalf of the authors of the TE Topology Model)

From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: [i2rs] WG LC for Topology (10/1 to 10/14)

This begins a 2 week WG Last call (10/1 to 10/14)

draft-ietf-yang-network-topo ¨C modeling draft
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo/

draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology ¨C L3 topology
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/

draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-topology ¨C L2 topology
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology/

Implementation status:

This an OpenDaylight (ODL) implementation of the L3 topology and general model.  It is likely the L2 topology model will be supported in future ODL implementations.   Jeff and I would appreciate anyone who has implementations of these topology models to provide details on list or offlist to the chairs.

Sue Hares