Hi Alia, > On 25 Jan 2017, at 13:35, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could one of you who are saying that a writable topology model can appear in > the regular configuration data-store please explain: > > How does validation at reboot work when there is dependency on learned > topology data that isn't yet available?
um - it can’t? (or I don’t think it can). But why would you have a writeable topology depend on learned topology data? Or am I totally misunderstanding your question? At any rate I’m only thinking of writeable topology in the context of inventory (so stuff that is configured rather than learned from a dynamic protocol) and perhaps intent (so, for example a point-to-point circuit could be expressed in a “service” model as a pair of nodes connected by a pair of unidirectional links with bandwidth parameters etc. - which the network-facing OSS would create by configuring a PWE between the two nodes). > I'd prefer more technology discussion of the nuances. This one has been an > active topic of discussion for at least 2 years, so I'm hopeful that you all > have well thought out answers. I’m afraid I’ve not followed I2RS closely enough. When the WG was set up I hoped it would define an ephemeral data store, define that YANG-modelled data could be carried over various transports/encodings (and perhaps define a binary-encoded protocol over an asynchronous transport as an example of such), and then shut itself down. It has taken a very different path so to a great extent I have disengaged (but remained subscribed to the list). I only got suck(er)ed into this thread because Juergen mentioned ODL. I’m not saying that the discussions over traceability, priority, security etc. are wrong but I see them as being largely orthogonal to the issue of ephemeral vs persistent config and to the selection of transport/protocol used to access the NE (just as I see the topology models themselves as being general rather than I2RS-specific). Giles > Regards, > Alia > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Lou Berger <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Sue, > > In short, I'm going to agree with Benoit - but for slightly different > reasons as I also co-chair TEAS, a group that is basing some of its > work on I2RS developed models. > > As a WG chair, I have always viewed the models being developed by I2RS > as typical models that are generally useful, and being defined by I2RS > simply because they were ahead of other groups that might otherwise > define the models -- and I view this as a fine thing that has benefit > for YANG users and other WGs. As TEAS chair, this is what lead me to > ensure that the models being defined in TEAS built on the I2RS YANG > modules vs their original path of redefining parallel function. > > As part of my view of the I2RS models being generally applicable to uses > beyond I2RS together with I2RS choosing YANG for modeling ephemeral > data, I have always expected that the I2RS WG would at some (perhaps as > part of the I2RS protocol definition) define how any YANG model can be > used to support I2RS. This view certainly lead me to conclude that > having the I2RS models move forward, just like any other YANG model, > makes sense and would benefit the other models and WGs that reference > this core work. This view also allows for the relationship to the > revised-data store work, as well as the specification of which data > store(s) I2RS uses, to be separately defined -- and to not gate > publication of these models. This separate specification would be > the location for any I2RS-specific transport and security considers, > so such would not belong in the generally reusable models developed > by I2RS. > > Essentially, As NETMOD co-chair, I concluded that the revised data > store work provided the direction on how ephemeral would be supported > in a general YANG context and, therefore, the major open issue / gating > impediment to progressing I2RS models had been removed and publication > of these models were unblocked. This also motivated my comments in the > related discussions at the last meeting. > > If my understanding/view is correct, i.e., that the topology models are > just like any other YANG model, then I think publication can and > should proceed (with the appropriate text for a typical YANG model). If > I misunderstood something, and the models produced by I2RS are limited > to ephemeral representations/data stores as well as specific YANG > transport protocols -- then as TEAS chair, I have to hit reset on the > TEAS topology work, and as NETMOD chair I think the NETMOD WG needs to > discuss what it means for a YANG model to be protocol/datastore > specific and if any guidelines or other new NTEMOD documents are need > to support such. > > Less importantly, as I2RS participant, I'd also ask for the documents > to be sent back to the WG for a new last call once the documents > are updated to reflect their narrow scope -- as I bet I'm not the only > person who viewed this work applicable to non-ephemeral uses. > > I hope this helps. > > Lou > > > On January 24, 2017 11:56:32 AM "Susan Hares" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > To: Martin: > > > > You have a reasonable request. If the NETMOD WG Chairs confirm their > > decision to make I2RS Yang Modules part of the Control Plane Datastore then > > as shepherd/WG-chair I will recommend these get added to the draft. > > > > Note to authors : > > > > As we wait for the NETMOD WG Chairs and Benoit to deliver the decision on > > Config/Control Plane datastore, the authors should work on: Basic Yang > > security considerations and the other I2RS Yang Module information. > > > > Sue Hares (Shepherd) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:39 AM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>; > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT) > > > > "Susan Hares" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> Martin: > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm sorry if misunderstood your comments regarding the > >> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00.txt. The reason the answer is > >> unclear is that it depends on the context of the question. > >> > >> > >> > >> . If you ask if the pre-standardization I2RS Yang Topology models > >> (basic and L3) implemented are part of the configuration data store, > >> the answer is yes - AFAIK. > > > > This is not my question. > > > >> . If you ask if the WG LC Topology models are approved to be part > > of > >> the configuration data store, my understanding was no. I2RS WG was to > >> abide by the decision of NETMOD WG on which data store I2RS modules > >> were placed in. > > > > Yes, this is my question. And my concern is that even if your understanding > > is that they are not designed to be part of the configuration datastores, > > this fact is not mentioned in the drafts. > > > >> If you are concerned the implementation varies from the standardized, > > please > >> express this to Benoit Claise. Based on your comments on my email > > thread, > >> I will be brief in my answers today. > > > > This is not my concern. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Sue > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:35 AM > >> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > >> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT) > >> > >> > >> > >> "Susan Hares" < <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> > Martin: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Your statement "One problem is that relying on the solution in > >> > >> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is a bit premature - in > >> > fact, > >> > >> > that document does not yet provide any details at all on the I2RS > >> > >> > ephemeral data store." This statement is not what I understood from > >> > IETF > >> 98 or the netmod > >> > >> > ADs. I guess your objection to this data model falls into Benoit > > Claise > >> > >> > (AD) and the NETMOD folks to answer. > >> > >> > >> > >> Why do you think that I have any objection to > >> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00. Please re-read what I wrote. > >> > >> > >> > >> My objection regards your statement: > >> > >> > >> > >> 1) I2RS Data models do not utilize the configuration data store, > >> > >> > >> > >> If this is true it needs to be clarified in the document. > >> > >> > >> > >> After all these emails back and forth, it is still not clear whether > >> this statement is true or not. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> /martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Sue Hares > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> > From: i2rs [ <mailto:[email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> > mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > >> On Behalf Of Martin > >> > >> > Bjorklund > >> > >> > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:26 PM > >> > >> > To: <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> > Cc: <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> > >> > <mailto:[email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> > >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> > Subject: Re: [i2rs] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on > >> > >> > draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with COMMENT) > >> > >> > > >> > >> > "Susan Hares" < <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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). > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Not really; I ask for clarification. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > 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.? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > One problem is that relying on the solution in > >> > >> > draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00 is a bit premature - in > >> > fact, > >> > >> > that document does not yet provide any details at all on the I2RS > >> > >> > ephemeral datastore. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > So I see two alternatives. Either wait with these documents, or > >> > >> > publish them with their datamodels as is (i.e., no new additional > >> > >> > notes), for the existing protocols and architecure. This would > >> > allow > >> > >> > them to be implemented just like any other YANG data model. This > >> > >> > would mean that the normal YANG security considerations guidelines > >> > should > >> be followed. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > /martin > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Sue > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> > > From: Robert Varga [ <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> > > mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > >> > >> > > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 4:11 PM > >> > >> > > To: Martin Bjorklund; <mailto:[email protected] > >> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> > > Cc: <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] > >> > > <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> > >> > > <mailto:[email protected] > >> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; > >> > >> > > <mailto:[email protected] > >> > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>; <mailto:[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> [email protected] <mailto:[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 > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > >> > i2rs mailing list > >> > >> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> [email protected] > >> > <mailto:[email protected]> > >> > >> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > >> > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> > >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
