[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bogdanovic-netmod-yang-model-classification) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 8199

NETMOD                                                     D. Bogdanovic
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Informational                                 B. Claise
Expires: June 9, 2016                                          C. Moberg
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        December 7, 2015


                       YANG Model Classification
             draft-ietf-netmod-yang-model-classification-00

Abstract

   The YANG [RFC6020] data modeling language is currently being
   considered for a wide variety of applications throughout the
   networking industry at large.  Many standards defining organizations,
   open source software projects, and vendors are using YANG to develop
   and publish models of configuration, state data and operations for a
   wide variety of applications.  At the same time, there is currently
   no well-known terminology to categorize various types of YANG models.

   A consistent terminology would help with the categorization of
   models, assist in the analysis the YANG data modeling efforts in the
   IETF and other organizations, and bring clarity to the YANG-related
   discussions between the different groups.

   This document describes a set of concepts and associated terms to
   support consistent classification of YANG models.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 9, 2016.






Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  First Dimension: YANG Model Abstraction Layers  . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Network Service YANG Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Network Element YANG Data models  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Second Dimension: Model Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Standard YANG Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Vendor-specific YANG Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Vendor-specific Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) has been actively
   encouraging IETF working groups to use the NETCONF [RFC6241] and YANG
   standards for configuration management purposes, especially in new
   working group charters [Writable-MIB-Module-IESG-Statement].

   YANG is also gaining wide acceptance as the de-facto standard
   modeling language in the broader industry.  This extends beyond the
   IETF, including many standards development organizations, industry
   consortia, ad hoc groups, open source projects and vendors.

   There are currently no clear guidelines on how to classify the
   layering of YANG models according to abstraction, or how to classify



Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   models along the continuum spanning formal standards publications and
   vendor-specific models.

   This document presents a set of concepts and terms to form a useful
   taxonomy for consistent classification of YANG models in two
   dimensions:

   o  The layering of models based on their abstraction levels

   o  The type of model based on the nature and intent of the content

   The two categories are covered in the next two sections.

2.  First Dimension: YANG Model Abstraction Layers

   Model developers have taken two approaches to developing YANG model:
   top-down and bottom-up.  The top-down approach starts with high level
   abstractions modeling business or customer requirements and maps them
   to specific networking technologies.  The bottom-up approach starts
   with fundamental networking technologies and maps them into more
   abstract constructs.

   There are currently no specific requirements on, or well-defined best
   practices around the development of models.  For the purpose of this
   document we assume that both approaches (bottom-up and top-down) will
   be used as they both provide benefits that appeals to different
   groups.

   For layering purposes, this documents suggests the classification of
   data models into two distinct abstraction layers:

   o  Network Element YANG Models describe the configuration, state data
      and operations of a specific device-centric technology or feature.

   o  Network Service YANG Models describes the configuration, state
      data and operations of an abstract representation of a service
      implemented on one or multiple network elements

   Figure 1 illustrates the application of YANG models at different
   layers of abstraction.  Layering of models allow for reusability of
   existing lower layer models by higher level models while limiting
   duplication of features across layers.

   For model developers, per-layer modeling allows for separation of
   concern across editing teams focusing on specific areas.

   As an example, experience from the IETF shows that creating useful
   network element YANG models for e.g routing or switching protocols



Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   requires teams that include developers with experience from
   implementing those protocols.

   On the other hand, network service models are best developed by
   people experienced in defining network services for consumption by
   programmers developing e.g. flow-through provisioning systems or
   self-service portals.


                       +--------------------------+
                       |  Operations and Business |
                       |      Support Systems     |
                       |        (OSS/BSS)         |
                       +--------------------------+

       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Network Service YANG data models

            +------------+      +-------------+      +-------------+
            |            |      |             |      |             |
            |  - VPWS    |      |   - VPLS    |      |    L3VPN    |
            |  - L2VPN   |      |   - L2VPN   |      |             |
            |            |      |             |      |             |
            +------------+      +-------------+      +-------------+

       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Network Element YANG data models

       +------------+  +------------+  +-------------+  +------------+
       |            |  |            |  |             |  |            |
       |    MPLS    |  |    BGP     |  | IPv4 & IPv6 |  |  Ethernet  |
       |            |  |            |  |             |  |            |
       +------------+  +------------+  +-------------+  +------------+

       Fig. 1 YANG Model Layers


2.1.  Network Service YANG Data Models

   Network Service YANG Data Models describe the characteristics of a
   service, as agreed upon with consumers of that service.  That is, a
   service model does not expose the detailed configuration parameters
   of all participating network elements and features, but describes an
   abstract model that allows instances of the service to be decomposed
   into instance data according to the Network Element data models of
   the participating network elements.  The service-to-element
   decomposition is a separate process with details depending on how the
   network operator chooses to realize the service.  For the purpose of



Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   this document we will use the term "orchestrator" to describe a
   system implementing such a process.

   As an example, the Network Service model included in
   [YANG-Data-Model-for-L3VPN-service-delivery] provides an abstracted
   model for Layer 3 IP VPN service configuration.  An orchestrator
   receives operations on service instances according to the service
   model and decomposes the data into specific Network Element models to
   configure the participating network elements to perform the intent of
   the service.

   Network Service YANG models defines services models to be consumed by
   external systems.  These models are commonly designed, developed and
   deployed by network infrastructure teams.

   YANG allows for different design patterns to describe network
   services, ranging from monolithic to component-based approaches.

   The monolithic approach captures the entire service in a single model
   and does not put focus on reusability of internal data definitions
   and groupings.  The monolithic approach has the advantages of single-
   purpose development including speed at the expense of reusability.

   The component-based approach captures device-centric features (e.g.
   the definition of a VRF, routing protocols, or packet filtering) in a
   vendor-independent manner.  The components are designed for reuse
   across many services.  The set of components required for a specific
   service is then composed into the higher-level service.  The
   component-based approach has the advantages of modular development
   including a higher degree of reusability at the expense of initial
   speed.

   As an example, an L2VPN service can be built on many different types
   of transport network technologies, including e.g.  MPLS or carrier
   ethernet.  A component-based approach would allow for reuse of e.g.
   UNI-interface definitions independent of the underlying transport
   network (e.g.  MEF UNI interface or MPLS interface).  The monolithic
   approach would assume a specific set of transport technologies and
   interface definitions.

2.2.  Network Element YANG Data models

   Network Element YANG Data Models describe the configuration, state
   data and operations of a network device as defined by the vendor of
   that device.  The models are commonly structured around features of
   the device, e.g. interface configuration [RFC7223], OSPF
   configuration [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang], and firewall rules definitions
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model].  The model provides a coherent data



Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   model representation of what is commonly a very mixed software
   environment consisting of the operating system and applications
   running on the device.

   The decomposition, ordering, and execution of changes to the
   operating system and application configuration is the task of the
   management framework that implements the YANG model.

3.  Second Dimension: Model Types

   This document suggests classifying YANG model types as either
   standard YANG models, vendor-specific YANG models, or vendor-specific
   extensions.

   The suggested classification applies to both Network Element YANG
   Data Models and to Network Service YANG Data Models.

   It is to be expected that real-world implementations of both Network
   Service and Network Element models will include a mix of all three
   types of models.

3.1.  Standard YANG Models

   Standard YANG models are published by standards defining
   organizations (SDOs).  While there is no formal definition of what
   construes an SDO, a common feature is that they publish
   specifications along specific processes with content that reflects
   some sort of membership consensus.  The specifications are developed
   for wide use among the membership or for audiences beyond that.

   The lifecycle of these models are driven by the editing cycle of the
   specification and not tied to a specific implementation.

   Examples of SDOs in the networking industry are the IETF, the IEEE
   and the MEF.

3.2.  Vendor-specific YANG Models

   Vendor-specific YANG models are developed by organizations with the
   intent to support a specific set of implementations under control of
   that organization.  The intent of these models range from providing
   openly published YANG models that may eventually be contributed back
   to, or adopted by an SDO, to strictly internal YANG models not
   intended for external consumption.

   The lifecycle of these models are generally aligned with the release
   cycle of the product or open source software project deliverables.




Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   It is worth noting that there is an increasing amount of interaction
   between open source projects and SDOs in the networking industry.
   This includes open source projects implementing published standards
   as well as open source projects contributing content to SDO
   processes.

3.3.  Vendor-specific Extensions

   Vendors develop Vendor-specific Extensions to standard models using
   YANG constructs for extending data definitions of previously
   published models.  This is done using the 'augment' statement that
   allows locally defined data trees to be augmented into locations in
   externally defined data trees.

   Vendors use this to extend standard data models to cover the full
   scope of features in implementations, which commonly is broader than
   what is covered by the standard model.

4.  Security Considerations

   At this stage, authors of the draft didn't look into security
   considerations.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

6.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to David Ball for his enlightenments on Metro Ethernet Forum
   service aspects.

7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   version 1: restructure the document, add the two dimensions, add the
   interaction with the different SDOs and opensource projects, add the
   definitions.

   version 2: added definitions for config and service models clarified
   second dimension of model classification.  fixed typos

   version 3: restructure and partial rewrite of section 2.

   version 4: Language fixes







Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-acl-model]
              Bogdanovic, D., Sreenivasa, K., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
              "Network Access Control List (ACL) YANG Data Model",
              draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model-05 (work in progress), October
              2015.

   [I-D.ietf-ospf-yang]
              Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, J., Bogdanovic, D., and K.
              Koushik, "Yang Data Model for OSPF Protocol", draft-ietf-
              ospf-yang-03 (work in progress), October 2015.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.

   [Writable-MIB-Module-IESG-Statement]
              "Writable MIB Module IESG Statement",
              <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-
              module.html>.

   [YANG-Data-Model-for-L3VPN-service-delivery]
              "YANG Data Model for L3VPN service delivery",
              <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-l3vpn-service-yang>.

Authors' Addresses

   Dean Bogdanovic

   Email: ivandean@gmail.com






Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          YANG Model Classification          December 2015


   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: bclaise@cisco.com


   Carl Moberg
   Cisco Systems, Inc.

   Email: camoberg@cisco.com









































Bogdanovic, et al.        Expires June 9, 2016                  [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/