SMI to XSD Translations IETF70 David Harrington

Agenda The Need The Approaches Comparisons

IETF69 XSDMI BOF Proposal – a standard XSD translation for SMIv2 types, textual conventions, and macros for MIB definitions Goal – any XML-based protocol or implementation can leverage existing SMIv2 types, textual conventions, MIB structures, and existing code. BOF Results: 13-0 in favor

Post-BOF Decision to bring it to OPSAWG rather than start a whole new WG for this fairly simple work YANG proposes an SMI-YANG-XSD translation path using tools. Proponents of YANG concerned that a standard SMI-XSD translation would constrain YANG work. Concern over competing standards slowed progress.

Moving Forward Compare the current YANG tools with the XSDMI definitions, and other SMI-XSD translations of data types, etc. Determine how far apart we are Determine if we can eliminate differences Determine why some differences might be needed.

The Approaches - XSDMI Draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-00 hand-crafted translations of SMI types and textual conventions Goal- to quickly provide types for implementers developing their own proprietary XML data models for Netconf Rough consensus on the need. Work stopped when Romascanu became AD.

The Approaches - XSDMI Work restarted by Li Yan when original authors no longer available. SMI is a separate standard from SNMP and from MIB modules, per RFC1052. Draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-01,02 positioned as protocol-independent translation to meet standard and proprietary needs for Netconf, MIB2RDML, and other uses.

The Approaches - XSDMI Libsmi is a popular open-source toolkit for validating MIB modules. Smidump (from libsmi toolkit) can translate a MIB module into XSD. Draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-01,02 based on documenting the open source code translation algorithms of smidump. “Running code” for SMI-XSD translations.

The Approaches – MIB2RDML MIB2RDML wants to make existing MIB available for reuse in Web Services environments by providing translations of SMI types, TCs, and structures. Leader of MIB2RDML recognized this could be done in two steps – SMI-XSD and then XSD-RDML (and other). Bob Natale joined XSDMI team after BOF.

The Approaches – XSDMI/MIB2RDML Draft-li-netconf-datatypes-03 unfocused due to competing use cases; confusion over relation to netconf; never published. We improved focus on SMIv2 fidelity and netconf-independence. New cleaner draft with a new name – draft-li- natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-00 Would like to make this simply an OPSAWG draft – not XSDMI, not YANG, not MIB2RDML

The Approaches - YANG YANG is focused on Netconf. Period. YANG based on “running code” from multiple sources (Juniper, Tail-f, Ericsson, Bierman, libsmi) YANG can import SMI MIB modules (including types, TCs, structures) Tools include smidump and pyang. Tools provide YANG-to-XSD translations.

The Approaches - YANG YANG specs are incomplete. As a result, the tools are still in development Current XSD output of tools doesn’t match

Proposal I have XSD from –Romascanu-netconf-datatypes-03 –Pyang output –Smidump output Let’s look these over and decide how different they are. Let’s decide whether it makes sense to try to reach consensus on the XSD format

Proposal Can these XSD formats be “harmonized”? We may need to accept that SMI to XSD translations might differ to meet requirements of different protocols If translations are protocol-independent, this is an OPS area task. Should this harmonizing be done in OPSAWG?

Thank You Questions?