ivy

Summary

The IETF ivy working group meeting focused on network inventory models. Several draft proposals were presented and discussed, including base models, hardware and software extensions, topology mapping, entitlement/allowance models, and power management. Key discussions revolved around scope, terminology, relationships between models, and potential working group adoption of submitted drafts. The main goal is to define a core network inventory model and its extensions.

Key Discussion Points

Base Model Scope: The discussion covered whether the base model should primarily focus on physical network elements and hardware components, or whether it should also include virtual network elements and software components.
Entitlement vs. Allowance: There was an extended discussion on the terminology of "entitlement" versus "allowance" in the context of inventory models and the relationship to higher-level asset lifecycle management. The discussion covered scope, with some arguing entitlement is at a higher orchestration level, and allowance relating to device and software licenses.
Inventory and Topology: The connection between network inventory and topology was extensively discussed. The key question centered on whether topology information should be directly included in the inventory model or linked through references and a mapping model. Diego highlighted a need to be careful about creeping requirements related to topology.
Power Management: A presentation on power management extensions sparked discussion about scope – specifically whether static power consumption information (data sheet) should be part of inventory or if dynamic consumption metrics should be considered telemetry. The location of this work was also discussed, perhaps moving to the OPS area.
Model Alignment: Multiple participants stressed the importance of aligning different models and avoiding duplication of information. Concerns were raised that different drafts and working groups could lead to inconsistencies. The question of bringing connecting activities into one working group was raised.
Yang Federation (YANG Mount): Alex presented about mounting Yang-defined information from remote data sources. It was discussed this may be more suitable as standard from netmod, but ivy is also a important stakeholder in this.

Decisions and Action Items

IPR and WG Adoption Poll: The chair will start the IPR poll for the core model, followed by a working group adoption poll. Further drafts will follow after that.
Terminology Definition: A clear definition of terminology should be defined within the base model document.
Alignment of Models: Explore and clarify terminology used in different proposals.
Review Drafts: Participants are encouraged to review the drafts and provide comments.
Evaluate Yang Federation: Evaluate the YANG Federation proposal in terms of scope and interest.

Next Steps

Continue refining the core network inventory model.
Address comments and feedback on submitted drafts.
Consider the scope of the working group and if the scope should be expanded.