I agree with Tom. This work does not seem to applicable to I2RS WG. At best, it is related to L2VPN WG, now, PALS and BESS. And in addition, there are other SDOs that are working on this as well. It would be difficult to unwind the overlap.
/himanshu -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:57 PM To: 'Thomas D. Nadeau'; 'Juergen Schoenwaelder' Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; 'Dongjie (Jimmy)'; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)' Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt Tom: I'll drop a note to official liaison for IEEE is a good idea, and other IEEE members of 802.1 I know. Thank you for that input. The I2RS L2 protocol topology is the protocol independent topology. Just as Alexander Clemm points out that the L3 topology may be a virtual composite of either the static setting or a combination of the protocol specific topologies, the L2 topology is a virtual composite of the lower L2 topologies. Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas D. Nadeau Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 3:32 PM To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Susan Hares; Dongjie (Jimmy) Subject: Re: [i2rs] 2 week WG adoption call for draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01.txt > On Apr 6, 2015:11:17 AM, at 11:17 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 09:11:39AM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: >> This begins a 2 week adoption call for >> draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology-01. >> >> Please indicate in your comments "support" or "no support" and >> discuss how this draft will allow I2RS client-agent pairs to query >> information about L2 topology. The draft can be found at: >> >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dong-i2rs-l2-network-topology/ >> >> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clemm-i2rs-yang-l3-topo/> > > I wonder how this will interwork with any possible IEEE work. Bridges > and VLANs had been modeled as MIBs back in a day but we meanwhile > transferred work all over to IEEE. I think there should be some IEEE > liaison interaction here. There has been indication at least, that the IEEE was going to embark on this work to reflect the L2/bridge MIB work that went on there. But as you say, there has been no official liaison to the IETF on this. Perhaps Dan (CC:ed) knows? --Tom > I also wonder to what extend this data model is repeating things that > are already in the interfaces abstraction we have. There is no mention > of RFC 7223 yet there is overlap. > > There are many other things I do not understand. Why is a chassis-id a > mac-address (and how relates this notion of a chassis to the physical > entity modeling work). How is this going to be implemented? Is the > idea that the information is extracted out of a briding process or do > protocols such as layer two discovery protocols like LLDP play a role > here? In short, I think this model needs some decent IEEE layer two > expertise - so does this really fall into the scope of I2RS? > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > i2rs@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
