Subject: [I2nsf] updates on the capability models

From: Aldo Basile <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:11:33 +0100

Dear Linda, all,

short update on the capability information model (IM) and data model 
(DM) task defined during the Wednesday meeting.

I have prepared a DM that derives from the capability IM model presented 
by John that uses the policy and decorator patterns. This model really 
improves on the one I circulated last Friday. Despite the patterns, the 
model is not complicated.

In the meantime, John is validating it, both formally and semantically. 
When it will pass John's validation I'll write the corresponding YANG 
Data model.

I also prepared an informal instance of the model that I circulated in 
the draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02 group. This will also be checked 
after John's validation, aligned with YANG DM (and written in XML, I guess).

I'll also provide guidelines to expand the DM instance with all the data 
that are currently part of the 
draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-05 (IMO, it will be a minor 
rearrangement).

When DM and instance will be ready, we'll ask the WG (in particular the 
other authors of IMs and DMs) to verify if they agree on the proposed DM 
and process the proposed modifications.

Furthermore, I just asked Arnaud Taddei from Symantec to share with us 
the additional requirements from a multi-domain-of-administration 
scenario he was mentioning during the I2NSF plenary. I'll process these 
data and share with you my findings and potential improvements to the 
I2NSF capability IM and DMs.

Finally, the new IM and DM implies changes to the capability IM in 
draft-xibassnez-i2nsf-capability-02, we'll also align the document to 
the changes.

Regards,
Aldo

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:30:33 +0000

Aldo,

Thank you very much for the update. By the way, the version on data tracker is still 00, so your update should be 01.

During our side meeting in Singapore among IM/DM authors, you stated that you don't like explicit listing of the needed attributes for capability, e.g. the line by line list of all the IP addresses format and you volunteered to restructure the NSF facing data model so that it can be easily extended. Once you prepare the preliminary NSF facing data model structure, the NSF facing data model authors can regroup the attributes accordingly.

How does the tree structure in the *pdf file you sent last Friday eliminate explicit listing of all the needed attributes for "Condition" on IP addresses?

Thank you very much.

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Aldo Basile [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:12 AM
To: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: updates on the capability models

Dear Linda, all,

Regards,
Aldo