Implementing the MEF NRP YANG modules

[jahveen]

Hello,

As stated in the SDK (R3), the SDK "Contains the MEF NRP YANG modules, including the ONF Transport API yang modules on which the MEF NRP API is based". For an implementation, there are numerous attributes that a server will not use - for example, both the TAPI and MEF NRP YANG modules provide attributes for bandwidth profiles, and a server implementation will unlikely implement both.

RFC 7950 (The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language) allows a server to document unsupported portions of a base module using the "Deviation" statement. Is this also what is recommended in the community as a solution to document unused attributes in the YANG modules?

Thanks.

Jahveen

[MichalLaczynskiAmartus]

Hi Jahveen,

The answer I've managed to get is as follows:
To my knowledge, this YANG “Deviation” statement was never discussed in MEF NRM/NRP and ONF TAPI.
Same in the IISOMI.
In fact, all these modeling groups are more focused on UML development. This of course does not prevent starting a discussion on the topic – as YANG is becoming central…

Hope that helps,
Michał

[rgaglian]

I have tested a number of TAPI vendors and deviations are frequent, period. Documenting them should be encouraged in order to make integration possible. Deviations should also be published at the yang-catalog so a northbound system could get them in a GET call.

[jahveen]

Thanks for your responses Michal and rgaglian. I have a couple of follow-up questions:

@MichalLaczynskiAmartus - for MEF NRM/NRP, on what forum do you recommend that I start a discussion topic?

@rgaglian - I searched the yang-catalog for examples of deviation modules, and there only seem to be a handful published by Cisco. Would I be correct in saying that most vendors have chosen not to publish theirs?

Thanks,
Jahveen

[MichalLaczynskiAmartus]

Well this is the best place I think.

[jahveen]

Thanks @MichalLaczynskiAmartus. Then I think we can continue the discussion in this thread.

[rgaglian]

There are a number of deviations published here: https://github.com/YangModels/yang

…

On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:32 AM jahveen ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for your responses Michal and rgaglian. I have a couple of follow-up questions: @MichalLaczynskiAmartus <https://github.com/MichalLaczynskiAmartus> - for MEF NRM/NRP, on what forum do you recommend that I start a discussion topic? @rgaglian <https://github.com/rgaglian> - I searched the yang-catalog for examples of deviation modules, and there only seem to be a handful published by Cisco. Would I be correct in saying that most vendors have chosen not to publish theirs? Thanks, Jahveen — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <https://github.com/orgs/MEF-GIT/teams/mef-lso-presto-sdk-community/discussions/6/comments/3>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAS7IM7ELQD44N6WDC2QHRLSFCMKRANCNFSM4QEYXVBQ> .

-- At least I did something Don Draper - Mad Men

[karthik-sethuraman]

Hi While this does not address the deviation question directly, I would like to point you to the recently published ONF TR-547 (TAPI Reference Implementation Agreement) available here https://www.opennetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TR-547-TAPI-v2.1.3-Reference-Implementation-Agreement-1.pdf This could potentially be one item for consideration in the next revision of the document. Regards Karthik From: rgaglian <notifications@github.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 3:50 PM To: MEF-GIT/mef-lso-presto-sdk-community <MEF.LSO.Presto.SDK.Community@noreply.github.com> Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com> Subject: Re: [MEF-GIT/mef-lso-presto-sdk-community] Implementing the MEF NRP YANG modules (#6) I have tested a number of TAPI vendors and deviations are frequent, period. Documenting them should be encouraged in order to make integration possible. Deviations should also be published at the yang-catalog so a northbound system could get them in a GET call. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/orgs/MEF-GIT/teams/mef-lso-presto-sdk-community/discussions/6/comments/2__;!!OmHR61tZos3RMTs!ewjYc7PspXS8mdu7kB7EC24weDWWr1opU5NeM9FxBnAsLaavKp9Syx0X9Q1ZFvC59v8NjQ$>, or unsubscribe [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOKNQS4EWHDH4ZTMHTY2BDSD2OXHANCNFSM4QEYXVBQ__;!!OmHR61tZos3RMTs!ewjYc7PspXS8mdu7kB7EC24weDWWr1opU5NeM9FxBnAsLaavKp9Syx0X9Q1ZFvDw0iITRA$>.

[jahveen]

Hello Karthik,

I would certainly welcome offical guidance on this area. Based on the community responses, I will assume that deviation modules are the recommended method of documenting unused attributes.

Thanks,
Jahveen