Subject: [NGO] BOF Proposal: Comparing Approaches to NETCONF Modeling (CANMOD)

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:20:29 +0100

Hi All,

For your information, I've submitted the following proposal for a BOF during 
the upcoming IETF in March.

Cheers,

David

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOF proposal - Comparing Approaches to NETCONF Modeling (CANMOD)

BOF length: 2.5 hours

Chairs: TBD

The NETCONF Working Group has completed a base protocol to be
used for configuration management.  However, the NETCONF protocol
needs a standard content layer.  The current specifications do
not include a modeling language or accompanying rules for how to
model the management information that is to be configured and
monitor using NETCONF.  A data modeling framework is needed which
supports ongoing development of IETF and vendor-defined modules,
within an integrated and seamless conceptual configuration
datastore and supporting infrastructure.

The goal of the BOF is to determine if there is sufficient
interest and cohesion to form a working group to standardize a
data modeling language for NETCONF.  If so, the target is for the
BOF to recommend one of the proposals as the starting point as a
modeling language for NETCONF.

A design team collected, clarified and categorized requirements
for a data modeling language from a broad group of IETF
participants. Many of these requirements had broad agreement. All
of these requirements, and a collection of use-cases motivating
the requirements where broad agreement was not reached, are
documented in an Internet Draft. The design team will also
prepare an example annotated instance document which incorporates
many of the requirements.  All BOF participants are expected to
read this document and to understand the basic concepts of the
NETCONF protocol.

In order to ensure productive discussion, the BOF chairs will
only grant agenda time to discuss these concrete proposals.
Discussion should focus on the unique features and approaches of
each proposal, use cases that are explicitly supported or not
supported, and how important these use cases are to the
community.

The community is invited to propose (as an Internet Draft)
specific concrete data modeling proposals that substantially
address the requirements gathered by the design team. These
proposals should explain any additional requirements or features
which motivated the specific design, which requirements are not
met, why, and to what extent the approach has been implemented or
modeled.  Each proposal should also include a data model
definition for the example annotated instance document.

The BOF will only spend a short time on the requirements
gathering work and will not debate the validity of the
requirements.  A case for or against specific requirements may,
however, be made during presentations of specific solutions.

Send comments on this BoF proposal to the NGO (NETCONF Goes On)
list: [email-masked]

Input Documents:

  Requirements for a Configuration Data Modeling Language
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-presuhn-rcdml-00.txt

  Drafts where teams write up how they deal with the
  requirements (not yet published since the requirements draft
  has to come out first)

  An Evaluation Framework for Data Modeling Languages in Network
  Management Domain
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xiao-evaluate-dml-01.txt

  NETCONF Data Modeling Language Requirements
  http://www.ersue.de/I-D/draft-linowski-netconf-DML-requirements-00.txt 

  YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF:
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bjorklund-netconf-yang-00.txt

  Using XML Schema to define NETCONF Content:
  http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chisholm-netconf-model-07.txt

  Other as-yet unpublished drafts

Agenda (preliminary since we don't know which proposals
there will be):

(times may have to be adjusted depending on how many proposals
there are.)

  1. Introduction (one of the chairs): 5 minutes

  2. Report from the requirements design team: 15 minutes

  3. "Using XML Schema to define NETCONF Content": how it meets
     the agreed requirements, which additional requirements it
     meets and chooses not to.  (Sharon: 25 minutes)  Clarifying
     questions only.

     Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)

  4. "something relaxng-ish": how it meets the agreed
     requirements, which additional requirements it meets and
     chooses not to.  (Presenter not yet known: 25 minutes) Clarifying
     questions only.

     Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)

  5. "YANG - A data modeling language for NETCONF": how it meets
     the agreed requirements, which additional requirements it
     meets and chooses not to.  (YANG: 25 minutes)  Clarifying
     questions only.

     Discussion of proposal (10 minutes)

  6. Other?

  7. General discussion and Way forward (rest of the time)

Proposed charter for the NETCONF Modeling Working Group, to be
formed after this BOF:

  The Working Group will standardize a modeling language and
  associated modeling rules to be used when defining management
  information to be used specifically with NETCONF.
  
  The Working Group is specifically NOT chartered to standardize
  a protocol-independent modeling language, but broader
  applicability of the language should not be needlessly
  hindered.

  The Working Group will use XX as the starting point for
  standardization.  (where XX is the output of this BOF)

  Deliverables, etc. to be decided later.

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:37:40 +0100

Hi David,

>      chooses not to.  (Presenter not yet known: 25 minutes) Clarifying

I'd volunteer to prepare this presentation, or cooperate on it. But - is
it necessary to have a corresponding draft out before IETF 71?

Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:50:01 +0100

Hello Lada,
Sorry, but I think we need to move beyond the slideware phase otherwise we will have delivery 
dates in the  next millennium.
Balazs

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320     email: [email-masked]

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:01:51 +0100

Hi Balasz,

Sharon contacted me in the mean time, there are already some plans about
the RELAX NG draft, so I'll try to help with it.

Cheers, Lada
 
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:03:52 +0100

Absolutely. No slides, no delay tactics!
CONCRETE and pretty COMPLETE base proposals.
With an evaluation on how the meet the DT requirements
or for those they think are not important a justification 
why they think they are not important.
And if a concrete proposal thinks they meet other
requirements, then they better justify/explain such extra
requirements.

Just my view, but we MUST (I think) converge/agree/decide
on what to do and on a direction that a WG needs to go.

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Balazs Lengyel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: maandag 28 januari 2008 16:50
> Aan: Ladislav Lhotka
> CC: [email-masked]
> Onderwerp: Re: [NGO] BOF Proposal: Comparing Approaches to NETCONF
> Modeling(CANMOD)
> 
> 
> Hello Lada,

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:16:08 +0100

> it necessary to have a corresponding draft out before IETF 71?

Greetings,

The answer is a resounding "yes".  However, I suspect that other readers may 
well contact you about your help.

Cheers,

David