Subject: Re: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface types

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 13:10:40 +0000

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:27 AM

Hello

I would like to ask a question regarding to ietf-microwave-types module.

For radio-link-terminal and carrier-termination, is it expected that
these new interface-types will be also registered at IANA Interface Type
registry for  IANAifType-MIB?

<tp>

The strict answer is no, they will not be added to the registry.  They
are only added when the IANA Cosiderations asks IANA to do so and this
I-D makes no such request.

If such a request were made, then they would be added both to the
IANA-maintained MIB Module and to the IANA-maintained YANG  module.

I did think of this a year ago and thought them too specific to CCAMP,
worth putting into a YANG module but not inflicting them on the IETF at
large, but do not think this ever got discussed on the WG list.

Tom Petch

BEST REGARDS

Theodoros Kallimanis
Principal Engineer (Systems & SW)

Department SSD
______________________________________
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Ave., Peania, GR 19002

Building A3, 2nd floor
t:   +30 2106671961
f:   +30 2106671446
m: +30 6941636679
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
 <http://www.intracom-telecom.com/> www.intracom-telecom.com

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

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

---

From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 08:00:37 +0000

Hi Theodoros,

I discussed with serveral people at the IETF week, the answer is the same as Tom gave.
We cannot use a YANG model to ask for IANA registry for MIB. 
As YANG is normally used by NETCONF/RESTCONF, MIB is used by SNMP. 
If there's interest on MIB, another draft should be sumbitted and ask for the registry. 

BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: tom petch [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2018年11月1日 21:10
收件人: Kallimanis Theodoros; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Yemin (Amy); [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Re: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface types

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;

Hello

<tp>

Tom Petch

BEST REGARDS

Theodoros Kallimanis

Department SSD

Building A3, 2nd floor
t:   +30 2106671961
f:   +30 2106671446
m: +30 6941636679

---

From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2018 11:33:16 +0200

Hi Amy

I thought that this could have been an addition to RFC 7224: IANA Interface Type YANG Module. I can understand now that this model is considered just as a reflection of the IF-MIB interface types and is intended to be updated only when a new interface type is added in IF-MIB. In the case of RLT and CT interface types, we have two interface types introduced in the Microwave Radio Link YANG Data Model but not yet required to be used in some MIB. So they remain unregistered in IANA. 
On the other hand, in NETCONF/RESTCONF, no specific ifType numerical value is required and the radio-link-terminal and carrier-termination identities specified in  ietf-microwave-types are adequate for this purpose.
Thanks for your answers.

Theodoros Kallimanis
[email-masked]
www.intracom-telecom.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Yemin (Amy) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:01 AM
To: tom petch <[email-masked]>; Kallimanis Theodoros <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface types

Hi Theodoros,

BR,
Amy

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 10:27 AM

Hello

For radio-link-terminal and carrier-termination, is it expected that these new interface-types will be also registered at IANA Interface Type registry for  IANAifType-MIB?

<tp>

The strict answer is no, they will not be added to the registry.  They are only added when the IANA Cosiderations asks IANA to do so and this I-D makes no such request.

If such a request were made, then they would be added both to the IANA-maintained MIB Module and to the IANA-maintained YANG  module.

I did think of this a year ago and thought them too specific to CCAMP, worth putting into a YANG module but not inflicting them on the IETF at large, but do not think this ever got discussed on the WG list.

Tom Petch

BEST REGARDS

Theodoros Kallimanis

Department SSD

Building A3, 2nd floor
t:   +30 2106671961
f:   +30 2106671446
m: +30 6941636679
 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]  <http://www.intracom-telecom.com/> www.intracom-telecom.com

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:33:26 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 9:33 AM

Hi Amy

I thought that this could have been an addition to RFC 7224: IANA
Interface Type YANG Module. I can understand now that this model is
considered just as a reflection of the IF-MIB interface types and is
intended to be updated only when a new interface type is added in
IF-MIB.

<tp>
That is not quite right.  Look at RFC7224 and you will find that it
defines the initial contents of the Interface Type YANG module and
defines the rules for updating that module, that is that a request is
made to IANA for a new interface type and IANA pass the request on to
the Designated Expert who decides whether or not to grant the request.
If the request for a new interface type is granted, the module is
updated; no further process is required.

Also, the Interface MIB is updated at the same time so that the SMI and
YANG versions of the interface type modules stay in step.  Four such
changes have been made so far in 2018, courtesy of ITU-T G.959 and
G.709.

In this case, the I-D, the WG, have made no such request; as I said
before, I did give it some thought but took it no further.

As you say, these types are then not registered.  There could be lots of
other unregistered interface types but since they are not registered, we
do not know!

Tom Petch

In the case of RLT and CT interface types, we have two interface types
introduced in the Microwave Radio Link YANG Data Model but not yet
required to be used in some MIB. So they remain unregistered in IANA.
On the other hand, in NETCONF/RESTCONF, no specific ifType numerical
value is required and the radio-link-terminal and carrier-termination
identities specified in  ietf-microwave-types are adequate for this
purpose.
Thanks for your answers.

Theodoros Kallimanis

-----Original Message-----
From: Yemin (Amy) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:01 AM
To: tom petch <[email-masked]>; Kallimanis Theodoros
<[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface
types

Hi Theodoros,

I discussed with serveral people at the IETF week, the answer is the
same as Tom gave.
We cannot use a YANG model to ask for IANA registry for MIB.
As YANG is normally used by NETCONF/RESTCONF, MIB is used by SNMP.
If there's interest on MIB, another draft should be sumbitted and ask
for the registry.

BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: tom petch [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2018年11月1日 21:10
收件人: Kallimanis Theodoros; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
Yemin (Amy); [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
主题: Re: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface types

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kallimanis Theodoros" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;

Hello

<tp>

Tom Petch

BEST REGARDS

Theodoros Kallimanis

Department SSD

Building A3, 2nd floor
t:   +30 2106671961
f:   +30 2106671446
m: +30 6941636679

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 16:38:20 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 8:00 AM

same as Tom gave.

Amy

That is not right.  A request is made to IANA in the IANA Considerations
for a new interface type, they pass it to the Designated Expert.  If the
request is granted, then the YANG Interface Type module and the SMI
Interface Type module are updated.  Easy peasy.

The request needs to reference a suitable technical defintion in a
stable source as judged by the Designated Expert.  RFC, ITU-T
Recommendations qualify; web pages generally do not (although one of the
W3C should:-)

Tom Petch

for the registry.
> 收件人: Kallimanis Theodoros; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Yemin (Amy); [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]

---

From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 16:08:49 +0000

Hi Tom and Theodoros,

Thanks for the discussion.
In the current draft the type defintion for radio-link-terminal and carrier-termination is under ietf-microwave-types model. But it should be better to add them to IANA-ifType registry.
Today we talked with the IANA delegates, it's suggested to add the request in the IANA section of the draft. 
Whether the MIB type registry is created will be decided by the IANA. From this draft, it's not necessary to ask for MIB  registry. However the MIB registry may be automaticlly created when creating the ifType registry. 
Another draft updated will be provided soon. 

BR,
Amy
________________________________________
发件人: tom petch [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2018年11月8日 0:38
收件人: Yemin (Amy); Kallimanis Theodoros; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Re: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface types

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 8:00 AM

same as Tom gave.

Amy

Tom Petch

for the registry.

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:07:10 +0000

Jonas

FYI

I am getting bounce messaages for
[email-masked]
with text suggesting that the domain name does not exist

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[email-masked]>
To: "tom petch" <[email-masked]>; "Kallimanis Theodoros"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: [CCAMP] radio-link and carrier-termination iana interface
types

> In the current draft the type defintion for radio-link-terminal and
carrier-termination is under ietf-microwave-types model. But it should
be better to add them to IANA-ifType registry.
> Today we talked with the IANA delegates, it's suggested to add the
request in the IANA section of the draft.
> Whether the MIB type registry is created will be decided by the IANA.
From this draft, it's not necessary to ask for MIB  registry. However
the MIB registry may be automaticlly created when creating the ifType
registry.
> 收件人: Yemin (Amy); Kallimanis Theodoros; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]