Subject: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 16:48:21 +0000

The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am doing now.

Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with the document.

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:08:01 +0100

> Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at whi…

This I-D contains some Ethernet specific definitions. Are we going to
define Ethernet specific things in the IETF or is IEEE ready to take
over data models for 'their' interfaces? In other words, what exactly
is the scope of this work?

And (likely depending on the answer to the first question), is it
meaningful to produce an interface extension module or is it better to
simply carefully revise the model we already have?

If we add something to the work of this WG, what will be realistic
milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
for some prioritization?

/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/>

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 12:10:37 -0500

> On Dec 15, 2015:12:08 PM, at 12:08 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

	The IEEE has officially started working on Ethernet models on
the public github repo here, so I suggest taking a look at that for any
overlaps.

	https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee

	—Tom

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:12:07 +0000

Hi Juergen,

Hopefully I can answer your questions inline ...

> is the scope of this work?
There is an informal IEEE 802.3 Ethernet design team (that has the 
backing of the 802.3 WG chair, and that I'm part of) that is working on 
YANG models for Ethernet interfaces.  The intention is that this 
informal design team will become a formal IEEE 802.3 WG design team once 
it traverses the necessary IEEE 802.3 WG processes (i.e. likely to be 
sometime later on next year).  The exact scope of this project hasn't 
been defined yet, and can't formally be defined until the IEEE 802.3 WG 
agrees that we can do it, but my expectation is that the long term goal 
will surely be to define YANG models to cover all of the 802.3 work, 
although there may be various interim goals along the way.

In the interim, whilst we wait for the formal WG to be started, the 
Ethernet design team are working on Ethernet models in Github 
(https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang).

How does that overlap with draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang?  The basic 
answer is that it shouldn't and arguably doesn't.  The only thing that 
it defines related to Ethernet is three leaves related to MAC address 
(configured value, operational value, and burnt-in value) that are 
applicable to all interfaces that use Ethernet framing.  There are 
various types of interface that use Ethernet framing but are not 
Ethernet interfaces, nor necessarily defined in IEEE.  I.e. I'm thinking 
of interfaces where a VPLS instances terminates to a layer 3 forwarding 
instances, or where a pseudo-wire is terminated directly to a layer 3 
forwarding instance.  But at the end of the day, if this part of the 
draft needs to be defined as part of the IEEE 802.3 space then I think 
that would be fine too - I don't think that it should really be an 
issue, and I think that we can involve the necessary folks to ensure 
that this bit gets to the right home.

> simply carefully revise the model we already have?
I'm not sure that I know the answer to this one.

Some of the extra configuration that is being defined by this module is 
more router specific, whereas I see the base interfaces model as 
potentially having a wider applicability across devices.

> milestones and how do we make sure we stay focused? Is there a need
I believe that at least some of this configuration is required to 
configure networks in a reliable way, so I would have thought that we 
need to progress these models at the same time as the routing protocol 
models.

On a related note, any VPLS or Pseudowire models defined by IETF are 
basically going to be undeployable without 
draft-wilton-netmod-intf-vlan-yang-01 (or an equivalent) being defined 
because there will be no configuration mechanism to bind the 
classification of traffic from a particular VLAN to a VPLS instance.  
Note that I don't see that any models coming out of IEEE 802.1Q are 
likely to help here.  This point was also raised in PALS at IETF 94 by 
some of the folks working on, or reviewing, those models.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Robert Wilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 19:19:08 +0000

Hi Tom,

> 	https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/experimental/ieee
The latest (work in progress) models are actually at:
https://github.com/8023YangDesignTeam/EthernetYang/tree/master/experimental/ieee/802.3

This repo is a direct fork of YangModels so that we can iterate the IEEE 
802.3 models at a faster pace, with an intention that we periodically 
fold the IEEE model updates back into YangModels when they have been 
reviewed and reached some level of stability and consensus in the design 
team.

Thanks,
Rob

---

From: Nadeau Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:27:48 -0500

Cool. Thanks for the update!

> On Dec 15, 2015:2:19 PM, at 2:19 PM, Robert Wilton <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> This repo is a direct fork of YangModels so that we can iterate the IEEE 802.3 models at a faster pace, with an intention that we periodically fold the IEEE model updates back into YangModels when they have been reviewed and reached some level of stability and consensus in the design team.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
>> 
>> 	—Tom
>>

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:22:16 +0100

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 07:12:07PM +0000, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >>The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for adopting 
> >>draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.   The minutes also show 
> >>that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I am 
> >>doing now.
> >>
> >>Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG item 
> >>and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?  Please 
> >>comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which time the WG 
> >>Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward with 
> >>the document.
> >>

Thanks for the background and explanation.

> some of the folks working on, or reviewing, those models.

So what will be realistic milestones? There are many things needed to
configure a complete network using YANG models and we need to make
sure we are able to finish what we start with realistic milestones
(and realistic really boils down to have a sufficient number of
dedicated reviewers lined up with the necessary cycles available to
make the milestones happen).

It might help the WG chairs to not only see "I support this work"
statements but also explicit "I support this work and I will provide
the time necessary to review the drafts as they progress through the
WG" statements.

/js

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 10:25:37 +0000

"I support this work and I will provide the time necessary to review the drafts as they progress through the WG"

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:22 PM
> To: Robert Wilton
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] call for consensus to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-
> ext-yang as NETMOD WG draft
> 
> > >>that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list, which I
> > >>am doing now.
> > >>
> > >>Should we move to adopt draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG
> > >>item and correspondingly add this to the WG charter as a milestone?
> > >>Please comment by Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 9AM EST at which
> > >>time the WG Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to
> > >>move forward with the document.
> > >>
> > backing of the 802.3 WG chair, and that I'm part of) that is working
> > on YANG models for Ethernet interfaces.  The intention is that this
> > informal design team will become a formal IEEE 802.3 WG design team
> > once it traverses the necessary IEEE 802.3 WG processes (i.e. likely
> > to be sometime later on next year).  The exact scope of this project
> > hasn't been defined yet, and can't formally be defined until the IEEE
> > 802.3 WG agrees that we can do it, but my expectation is that the long
> > term goal will surely be to define YANG models to cover all of the
> > 802.3 work, although there may be various interim goals along the way.
> >
> > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__github.com_8023YangDesignTeam_EthernetYang&d=BQICAg&c=BFpW
> Qw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA
> &m=3tQyUrqfsDAP33LXzgkILy2EMU_0VWz161hD3GFUwRI&s=TrgAGrPT06kL
> wOQzvXNfrBVOFWyoF77-gC0jg_K8EZI&e= ).
> >
> > How does that overlap with draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang?  The
> > basic answer is that it shouldn't and arguably doesn't.  The only
> > thing that it defines related to Ethernet is three leaves related to
> > MAC address (configured value, operational value, and burnt-in value)
> > that are applicable to all interfaces that use Ethernet framing.
> > There are various types of interface that use Ethernet framing but are
> > not Ethernet interfaces, nor necessarily defined in IEEE.  I.e. I'm
> > thinking of interfaces where a VPLS instances terminates to a layer 3
> > forwarding instances, or where a pseudo-wire is terminated directly to
> > a layer 3 forwarding instance.  But at the end of the day, if this
> > part of the draft needs to be defined as part of the IEEE 802.3 space
> > then I think that would be fine too - I don't think that it should
> > really be an issue, and I think that we can involve the necessary
> > folks to ensure that this bit gets to the right home.
> 
> sure we are able to finish what we start with realistic milestones (and realistic
> really boils down to have a sufficient number of dedicated reviewers lined up
> with the necessary cycles available to make the milestones happen).
> 
> statements but also explicit "I support this work and I will provide the time
> necessary to review the drafts as they progress through the WG"
> statements.
> 
> /js
> 
> --
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jacobs-
> 2Duniversity.de_&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31O
> cNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=3tQyUrqfsDAP33LXzgkILy2EMU_0
> VWz161hD3GFUwRI&s=C5gBdpByRrOyMbxueDnG006pA9mM-
> sXifOLKaOpwlHo&e= >
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=BQICAg&c=BFpWQw8bsuK
> pl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=3tQy
> UrqfsDAP33LXzgkILy2EMU_0VWz161hD3GFUwRI&s=NjmMtB78Y0S8wiF9-
> qLXz4zRy6TyzebcodZpAcFoLWY&e=

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:32:59 +0100 (CET)

Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The minutes for IETF 95 show that there was in-room support for
> adopting draft-wilton-netmod-intf-ext-yang as a WG draft.  The minutes
> also show that this decision would be confirmed on the mailing list,
> which I am doing now.
> 
> Chairs will gauge whether or not there is consensus to move forward
> with the document.

I support the adoption of this draft and I will review and discuss it.

/martin