Re: [yang-doctors] IETF YANG model for TCP?

Kent Watsen <> Fri, 05 April 2019 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670BD120422 for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N_O4SaK9B63a for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1A1512004E for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1554470997; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=C28FW8S/x2GlzAS0IKX/9H1RvgDKzw7FJe+9mYbdhII=; b=UmavqtisCjD/N085GzGB0yV3HAp/ao04L7xpkKDGMe3nw7fTSYqpwa9J6icikDTB LF+b+5DrMjE+Ex6CyAC7olR949b/xks6UQgSQAHKjSiaBTX60CqdWXbzRbUheU+1VUe N8Yp6KtaGxUrGasD8PlM59rCyCGfDDkBaxuB1VRA=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_49601B5C-B90F-4DF5-A2BA-E853B930B6AE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:29:57 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "ietf-interest(mailer list)" <>, YANG Doctors <>, "Peter Van Horne (petervh)" <>, "cs-yang(mailer list)" <>, "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)" <>, "Gerard Sheehan (gsheehan)" <>, "Amrit Hanspal (ahanspal)" <>, "Robert Grasby (rgrasby)" <>
To: Benoit Claise <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.04.05-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] IETF YANG model for TCP?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 13:30:02 -0000

This request is covered.  Michael and I met in Prague about the collaboration discussed last week on the NETCONF list.  We have a plan to work out the long-term strategy for TCPM modeling effort.


> On Apr 5, 2019, at 5:50 AM, Benoit Claise <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Someone has a use case for a TCP YANG module and is interested to collaborate with Michael?
> Or maybe we have someone similar internally.
> If interested, I can make the introduction.
> Regards, Benoit
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	IETF YANG model for TCP?
> Date:	Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:49:55 +0000
> From:	Scharf, Michael <> <>
> To:	Benoit Claise <> <>
> Hi Benoit,
> I am reaching out to gauge interest in an IETF YANG model for TCP. While there are YANG models for many protocols, there is apparently no IETF YANG modeling work for TCP. For instance, an IETF TCP YANG model could be useful for network elements that implement TCP in the control plane or in the management plane.
> An IETF YANG model for TCP would probably be homed in the TCPM working group, albeit TCPM has little experience in data models. Nonetheless, as a chair of TCPM, I believe it would be useful to discuss among TCP implementers whether an IETF TCP YANG model would make sense, and whether a vendor-neutral model would be doable. Both are open questions and it is possible that the answer is "no" (and "no" is actually my default answer).
> If you are aware of persons (e.g., in Cisco) that may be interested in discussing these questions, please feel free to forward this e-mail. Please also feel free just to delete this e-mail.
> I have submitted a small I-D to trigger a discussion in TCPM ( <>, presentation slide can be found at <>). As a TCP-MIB exists (RFC 4022), the document currently uses a YANG model auto-converted from the TCP-MIB as a starting point, albeit this has issues and updates would obviously be needed. As explained in the document, the scope of a model would need to be discussed, as well as many other questions.
> The TCPM working group will only consider a document if there is significant support from major implementers, e.g., by reviewing or co-authoring the document. Any thoughts or feedback would be welcome.
> Thanks a lot!
> Michael
> .
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list