Perhaps just adding to the confusion, here is what the WG charter
says:
o The ability to extract information about topology from the network.
Injection and creation of topology will not be considered as a work
item. Such topology-related models will be based on a generic
topology model to support multiple uses; the generic topology model
should support topology extension for non-I2RS uses.
And as a milestone:
Dec 2016 - Request Publication of Protocol Independent Topology Data Models
/js
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:06:04PM -0500, Susan Hares wrote:
> Robert and Martin:
>
> I agree with Robert that the current implementations of the ODL topology
> models are handled as part of the configuration data store with ephemeral
> state. I will point out that these implementation are pre-standards
> implementations of the I2RS YANG Data model.
>
> While standardizing the topology data models, the I2RS WG have been asked to
> align with the draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.txt NETMOD WG
> document. This NETMOD WG document moves the I2RS ephemeral data store from
> configuration data store to a Control Plane data store. If we follow this
> draft, the I2RS Topology models are part of the I2RS ephemeral data store.
> If you disagree with the placement of the Topology data models, please
> indicate this to the NETMOD WG and to Benoit. Could you propose a way that
> you would see the ephemeral state working with the configuration data store
> to the NETMOD WG?
>
> Quite frankly, I feel a bit of whip-lash on this topic. NETMOD WG asks for
> Control Plane Data store. You ask for configuration data store (which was
> the I2RS initial proposal). It is possible for either one to work for I2RS
> Topology models - if the right details are taken care of. How do we make
> progress on choosing one method so we can write the I2RS Topology Models
> security considerations.?
>
> Sue
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Varga [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:11 PM
> To: Martin Bjorklund; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT)
>
> On 01/23/2017 09:26 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> I'm pulling your questions to the top of this email.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Question 1: Ok. Just to make sure I understand this correctly -
> >> these topology models are intended to be I2RS-specific, and they
> >> cannot be used for any other purpose. If anyone needs a general
> >> topology model outside of the I2RS protocol, they will have to design
> >> their own model. Is this correct?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Response 1: Not really.
> > Ok, so are you saying that the models are in fact generic, and can be
> > used outside of I2RS? I.e., they *can* be used with the normal
> > configuration datastores?
> >
>
> From implementation experience, yes, they can be used for storing
> configuration. OpenDaylight uses (an ancient predecessor of)
> yang-network-topo to store configure details about devices in its managed
> networks.
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
>
--
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
