Hi Med / Benoit / Jeff / All, I agree re option 2. If there are no objections we’ll refactor the draft on that basis.
Cheers John From: "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 07:35 To: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>, "Evans, John" <jevan...@amazon.co.uk>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "opsawg-cha...@ietf.org" <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmo...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel Resent from: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> Resent to: <akad...@cisco.com>, <jevan...@amazon.co.uk>, <jh...@juniper.net>, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>, <o...@amazon.com> Resent date: Friday 22 November 2024 at 07:35 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Benoît, all, I think that I can convince myself that option 2 is better here (have both IM/DM in the same spec). The main challenge will be to find “where” to anchor the nodes (interface, NE, routing management, etc.). Otherwise, I expect the structures/groupings we already have in the IM will be reused nicely. However, we will need to register the IM as well as we need to import it. I’m not sure to understand the last part of the following: == 3. Should information models specified in YANG also be registered in IANA? This is where we might have different views. As mentioned during the meeting: "If you have it in IANA, then people will expect tooling to work.". = The tooling (pyang, etc.) still work even with the current IM in the draft. Also, the module can be imported/augmented/etc. Please note that even **fake** modules were registered! Think about ietf-template for example: == ietf-template ietf-templ...@2010-05-18.yang N urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template temp [RFC6087] === Thank you. Cheers, Med De : Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> Envoyé : jeudi 21 novembre 2024 18:22 À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>; Evans, John <jevan...@amazon.co.uk>; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org Cc : Pylypenko, Oleksandr <o...@amazon.com>; Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Aviran Kadosh (akadosh) <akad...@cisco.com> Objet : Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel Dear all, Joe and I spoke. As we see it, there are multiple questions here. 1. Is the IETF interested into standardizing information models? As mentioned by Mahesh (in the OPSAWG meeting minutes, to be posted soon): "generally we don't spend too much time on info models and work on standardise data models". However, we believe, as we accepted the discard information as WG document already, let's not revisit this decision. 2. How should those information models be specified? Could be text, UML, whatever. YANG is also a possibility (even if not common practice) as YANG is a data modeling language. As John mentioned during the meeting, one argument in the favor of YANG is that it's well known. 3. Should information models specified in YANG also be registered in IANA? This is where we might have different views. As mentioned during the meeting: "If you have it in IANA, then people will expect tooling to work.". What do we do from here? 1. Information model published as informational document: YANG model in an appendix, not normative. In such a case, you don't register the YANG module in IANA. 2. Information and data models in a single standards-track document, with the data model registered as a YANG module with IANA. Number 2 might be better, as you mentioned that there are existing implementations. Plus it might ease maintainability and give other implementations something to root to and augment. This might also be the path of least resistance to publish. The YANG model in IANA would also justify the fact that you moved from Informational to Standard Track in this version (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel/03/) Jeff, at the microphone during the OPSAWG meeting, mentioned the issue of evolving/maintaining information models before going to a data model. We are not too sure how publishing an information model as RFC (as opposed to a WIKI or something similar) is actually helping out. Regards, Joe and Benoit On 11/13/2024 11:19 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote: As a contributor, I think a data model approach would be far more useful. That said, I haven’t seen these proprietary implementations based on your draft info model to understand how they deviate or what data modeling approach they take. I still think that starting with a YANG data model wouldn’t preclude future drafts standardizing IPFIX-based approaches to packet discard reporting (just as we’ve seen MIBs move to YANG). As a chair, I think it would be easier from a process standpoint if this was a data model. There just isn’t a lot (any?) info models in the IETF developed in YANG. That said, things don’t always have to be easy, and Med has already commented having a YANG info model is not an insolvable problem. I know Benoît is a bit busy, and I’m sure he’ll want to weigh in next week. Joe From: Evans, John <jevan...@amazon.co.uk><mailto:jevan...@amazon.co.uk> Date: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 at 06:53 To: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org><mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org><mailto:opsawg-cha...@ietf.org> Cc: Pylypenko, Oleksandr <o...@amazon.com><mailto:o...@amazon.com>, Jeff Haas <jh...@juniper.net><mailto:jh...@juniper.net>, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com><mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>, Aviran Kadosh (akadosh) <akad...@cisco.com><mailto:akad...@cisco.com> Subject: draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel Hi All, Following last week's discussion in Dublin regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-discardmodel, we would appreciate feedback from the working group and chairs on how to proceed. To provide context, we initially defined an information model to establish a common framework for discard reporting that could be implemented across different data models, such as YANG and IPFIX. We selected YANG to define the information model for three key reasons: 1) the RFC8791 extensions enable the model to be decoupled from specific implementations; 2) this approach allows for lossless translation to a YANG-based data model; 3) the community has extensive experience with YANG. During the discussion, two main perspectives emerged: continue with the current approach of defining an information model; redefine the draft as a data model. Given that the information model is already in YANG, creating data models for interface, device, and control-plane would be straightforward. This could also serve as a reference for a future IPFIX-based discard reporting data model. Hence, we would appreciate feedback on whether the best path forward is to continue with the current information model approach or to refocus on developing data models instead? thanks John Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. Amazon Data Services UK Limited. Registered in England and Wales with registration number 09959151 with its registered office at 1 Principal Place, Worship Street, London, EC2A 2FA, United Kingdom.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
