Internet DRAFT - draft-betts-netmod-framework-data-schema-uml
draft-betts-netmod-framework-data-schema-uml
Netmod Working Group M. Betts, Ed.
Internet-Draft ZTE
Intended status: Informational N. Davis, Ed.
Expires: April 28, 2017 Ciena
K. Lam, Ed.
E. Varma, Ed.
Nokia
B. Zeuner, Ed.
Deutsche Telekom
S. Mansfield, Ed.
Ericsson
P. Doolan, Ed.
Coriant
October 25, 2016
Framework for Deriving Interface Data Schema from UML Information Models
draft-betts-netmod-framework-data-schema-uml-04
Abstract
This draft describes a framework for how purpose and protocol
specific interfaces can be systematically derived from an underlying
common information model, focusing upon the networking and forwarding
domain. The benefit of using such an approach in interface
specification development is to promote convergence,
interoperability, and efficiency.
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 April 28, 2017.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Information Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Unified Modeling Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Standard UML Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. From UML IM to Data Schema Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Methodology Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Common Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Core Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Technology specific or application specific Sub-
models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Common Information Model View for a Specific Purpose . . 9
4.4. Data Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. Interface encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Translation from UML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix A. Additional Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
1. Introduction
Interface specifications are often generated as point solutions where
the designer codes a particular interface from domain (problem space)
concepts that may not be explicitly captured, may be defined using
localized terminology that is subject to ambiguity in interpretation,
and is highly focused on a particular use-case/application. The
designer typically provides a representation of the interface schema
in the form of a data schema [RFC3444](i.e., data structures conveyed
over the interface), which only exposes the view of the domain
relevant at that specific interface. As this data schema is a simple
statement of the particular interface, it solely describes
relationships relevant to the specific realization, having no
inherent relationship to other interfaces in the system.
Approaching the development of interface specifications on a per use-
case/application basis tends to promote unnecessary variety through a
proliferation of similar interfaces, resulting in unnecessary
divergences that limit interoperability. It also risks confusion of
representational artifacts with fundamental characteristics of the
information to be conveyed across the interface. There is also a
risk that conflicting representations of the same information may be
generated. Finally, as each such interface appears to stand alone,
it thereby fails to capture relationships with other aspects of the
same (or different) domains that are not explicitly needed for the
interface.
This draft describes a framework for how a protocol specific data
schema and the encoding used for the interface can be systematically
derived from an underlying common information model, focusing upon
the networking and forwarding domain. The benefit of using such an
approach in the development of interface specifications is to promote
convergence, interoperability, and efficiency.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Basic Concepts
An information model condenses domain knowledge and insights to
provide a representation of its essential concepts, structures, and
inter-relationships. In capturing domain understanding, such a model
offers a coherent and consistent terminology and structure, expresses
the semantics of the domain, and interrelates all relevant aspects of
the domain. It enables a consistent expression of information that
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
improves interoperability between software components at interfaces
derived from it. A "good" information model should capture domain
best practices, and be designed to support domain variety as well as
extensibility and evolution. Examples of domains include networking
and forwarding, storage, etc. A common industry information model is
the assembly of all domain information models, which inter-relate at
"touch points". Note that a common industry information model should
not be interpreted as being a monolithic entity; in particular, a
modular structure is essential to allow for extensibility.
There may be several relevant views of any particular domain,
depending upon the perspective of the viewer, all of which are
interrelated and involve subsets of the information model, and none
of which contradict each other. (It should be noted that one view
provides the information model representation of the overall domain.)
To form a particular (purpose-specific) view, some elements of the
model may be pruned. Additionally, for efficiency, some systematic
refactoring of the information model may also occur.
In this draft, the term data schema is used in the context of either:
(i) a specific protocol that is used to implement a purpose specific
interface, or (ii) a programming language that is used to invoke a
purpose specific API. Note that it is possible to map directly from
the purpose specific information model to interface encoding.
While a purpose specific interface/API is not a simple direct
encoding of the information model of the overall domain, it is by its
nature based on a relevant view of the information model of the
domain (i.e., a purpose specific information model view). It must be
completely and consistently traceable to this view and should use the
associated domain terminology. Depending on its application, a
particular view may lead to a number of encoded forms at various
types of interfaces/APIs. The information model does not dictate the
encoded form, which will depend upon such factors as necessary
capability, interaction style, and programming language.
3. Information Modeling
This section introduces the Unified Modeling Language (UML), which
has been used to model application structure, behavior, and
architecture (in addition to business process and data structure).
It also provides references to existing and ongoing work on standard
information models based on UML.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
3.1. Unified Modeling Language
The information model is expressed in terms of the Unified Modeling
Language (UML) [OMG_UML], which was developed by the Object
Management Group. It is a general-purpose modeling language in the
field of software engineering. In 2000 the Unified Modeling Language
was also accepted by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) as an approved ISO standard [ISO_IEC_UML]. UML
may be used in four ways:
o To define a set of objects (instantiated classes that, if
organized, describe a data model)
o As an information model
o As a metamodel (used to create an information model)
o As a meta-metamodel
UML defines a number of basic model elements (UML artifacts), such as
object classes, attributes, associations, interfaces, operations,
operation parameters, data types, etc. In order to assure a
consistent and harmonized modelling approach, and to ensure
uniformity in the application of UML to a problem domain, a subset of
the basic model artifacts should be selected according to guidelines
for creating an information model expressed in UML [ONF_TR-514]. The
guidelines are generic; i.e., they are not specific to any particular
domain that the information model is addressing, nor are they
restricted to any particular protocol interface data schema. A UML
information model may be created using Open Source UML tools;
guidelines to be taken into account during the creation of a UML
information model for the Open Source tool Papyrus have been
developed in [ONF_TR-515].
3.2. Standard UML Information Model
Information models expressed in UML, primarily focused upon the
networking and forwarding domain, have been, and are in the process
of being, developed in ITU-T, TM Forum, NGMN, 3GPP, MEF, ONF, and
others.
ONF has defined the Core Model of the ONF Common Information Model
(ONF-CIM). The ONF Core Model [ONF_TR-512] provides a representation
of network resources for the purpose of management-control and is
independent of specific forwarding technology. The Core Model can be
augmented to provide forwarding technology specific representation.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
ITU-T Recommendations are focused on understanding the
telecommunications problem space and developing information models
addressing network and network element considerations. Some examples
of available standard ITU-T information models relevant to the
networking and forwarding domain include:
o ITU-T G.874.1 (2016), Optical transport network: Protocol-neutral
management information model for the network element view
[ITU-T_G.874.1]
o ITU-T G.8052/Y.1346 (2016), Protocol-neutral management
information model for the Ethernet Transport capable network
element [ITU-T_G.8052]
o ITU-T G.8152/Y.1375 (2016), Protocol-neutral management
information model for the MPLS-TP network element [ITU-T_G.8152]
o ITU-T G.7711/Y.1702 (2016), Generic protocol-neutral management
Information Model for transport resources [ITU-T_G.7711]
Note that ONF and ITU-T have adopted the same Core Model in
[ONF_TR-512] and [ITU-T_G.7711], and are continuing to maintain
alignment.
The above information models are developed from ITU-T Recommendations
that define the respective transport technology functional models and
management requirements.
The TM Forum community has likewise developed extensive models of the
same space from the network level management perspective [TMF_MTNM]
[TMF_MTOSI] [TMF_TR225]. The basis for all functions made available
to the network level management is defined in the protocol-neutral
network element level management work done in ITU-T. Its models thus
complement the ITU-T information models. In further collaboration
with 3GPP, considerable joint effort has been devoted to develop a
consistent and coherent approach to that space. Most recently
(September 2016), a Collaboration Agreement was signed between the
MEF Forum, ONF, and TM Forum to enable common model collaboration on
Information Model constructs and network resource Information Model.
The NGMN has published a document called Next Generation Converged
Operations Requirements (NGCOR) [NGMN_NGCOR], with the expressed
purpose of taking these requirements into account when converged
management interfaces for mobile and fixed networks are being
standardized in the SDOs. An ongoing collaboration called the Multi-
SDO Project on Converged Management is taking care that the
requirements are considered during the specification of new
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
interfaces. It includes participants from ETSI, NGMN, TMF, 3GPP, and
other SDOs, equipment vendors, OS vendors and service providers.
4. From UML IM to Data Schema Definition
This section outlines the overall structure of a modular and
evolvable common information model and how purpose specific IM views
and data schema may be derived from it [ONF_TR-513].
4.1. Methodology Overview
As illustrated in Figure 1 below, the common information model is
comprised of a library of model artifacts (objects, attributes, and
associations) organized into a number of sub-models, to facilitate
the independent development of technology and application specific
extensions. The Core Model refers to information model artifacts
that are intended for use by multiple applications and/or forwarding
technologies. For purposes of navigability, the Core Model is
further sub-structured into Core Network Model (CNM), Core Foundation
Model, Core Physical Model, and the Core Specification Model (these
are further discussed in Section 4.2.1). The forwarding technology
specific model refers to technology specific extensions; e.g., for
OTN, Ethernet, MPLS-TP, SDH, etc. The application specific model
refers to extensions for supporting particular applications.
+-------------+
| Common |
| Information |
| Model |
| (CIM) |
|+-----------+|
||Core Model ||
||(TR-512) ||
||* CNM ||
||* Foundat. ||
||* Physical ||
||* ... ||
||* ... || +----------+ +---------+ +---------+
|+-----------+| | | Map |Interface| Map |Interface|
|+-----------+| | View |---+\| 1 data |---+\| 1 |
||Technology ||-------\ | of |---+/| schema |---+/|encoding |
||specific ||Prune/ \| CIM | +---------+ +---------+
||models ||refactor/| for a |
|+-----------+|-------/ |particular| Map +---------+
|+-----------+| . | purpose |-------------------+\|Interface|
||Compute || . | |-------------------+/| 2 |
||specific ||-------\ +----------+| . . |encoding |
||models ||Prune/ \ +--.--.----+| . . +---------+
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
|+-----------+|refactor/ +-.--.-----+|. .
| . |-------/ . . . .
| . | . . . . .
| . | . . . . .
|+-----------+| . . . . .
||Storage ||. . . . . .
||specific || . . . . . .
||models || . .. . . .
|+-----------+| . . . . .
| | . .. . . .
+-------------+ . . .. . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .. . .
. . . . . . . .
+-----------.-----.-----.------.--.---------------.---.------------
|Guidelines . . . . . . . . \
|+----------\ +------\ +------\ +----------\ +------------ |
|| TR-513 \ |TR-514 \ |TR-515 \ | TR-513 \ +------------\\ |
|| Model | |Use of | |Papyrus| | Common | | Interfac |||
|| structure | |UML | |GitHub | | process | | specific |+|
|+-----------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-----------+ +-------------+ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
High-level common information model structure and methodology for
deriving interface protocol specific data schema/interface encodings
Figure 1
The following subsections provide further elaboration of the high-
level methodology introduced above.
4.2. Common Information Model
As introduced earlier, a common information model includes the
objects/packages, their properties (represented as attributes), and
their relationships, etc. that are necessary to describe the domain
for the applications being developed. It will be necessary to
continually expand and refine the common model over time as new
forwarding technologies, capabilities and applications are
encompassed and new insights are gained. To allow these extensions
to be made in a seamless manner, the common information model is
structured into a number of sub-models. This modelling approach
enables application specific and forwarding technology specific
extensions to be developed by domain experts with appropriate
independence.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
Over time, some part(s) of the common information model may need to
be augmented or changed. Any such areas are clearly identified using
model lifecycle stereotypes (controlled annotations; e.g.,
experimental, preliminary, obsolete) to ensure ongoing compatibility
and to ease migration. The use of the lifecycle stereotypes is
described in the UML modeling guidelines [ONF_TR-514].
4.2.1. Core Model
The core model is organized into a number of sub-models, each
addressing a specific topic to allow for easier navigation.
Currently, these consist of the Core Network Model (CNM), Core
Foundation Model, Core Physical Model, and the Core Specification
Model [I-D.lam-topology].
o The CNM consists of artifacts that model the essential network
aspects that are neutral to the forwarding technology(ies) of the
network. The CNM currently encompasses Forwarding, Termination,
Topology, and Resilience aspects (subsets of the CNM).
o The Core Foundation Model provides a detailed view of all aspects
of the CNM that are relevant to all other parts of the Common
Information Model. Currently, this model includes coverage of
naming and identifiers (so that communications about an entity can
take place).
o The Core Physical Model provides a view of the model for physical
entities (including equipment, holders, and connectors).
o The Core Specification Model provides for a machine readable form
of specific localized behavior, enables the introduction of run
time schema, allows leverage of existing standards definitions
(e.g., technology/application specific) in a machine readable
language, and simplifies representations.
4.2.2. Technology specific or application specific Sub-models
These sub-models contain the artifacts (objects, attributes and
associations) that relate solely the specific technology or
application. In some cases, the addition of an application or
technology sub-model will also require, and result in, enhancement of
the core model.
4.3. Common Information Model View for a Specific Purpose
The next step is the development of a purpose specific information
model, which is a true subset of the common information model. A
purpose specific information model will typically be much smaller
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
than the entire common information model. To provide maximal reuse,
the purpose specific view is developed in two steps: (1) prune and
refactor a copy of the artifacts of the common information model to
provide a model of the network to provide a purpose specific
information model of the network to be managed, where only those
artefacts that represent the capabilities that are both in scope and
supported are included, and (2) define the access rights for the
various groups of users that will manage that network. Pruning and
refactoring provides a purpose specific information model that
represents the capabilities of the network of interest. The
definition of access rights provides the ability to limit the actions
that can be taken by the various user groups that will use that
information model.
o Pruning is used to derive a (smaller) model with a narrower scope
or view. Pruning can remove the objects/packages/attributes/
associations that are not required.
- Select the required object classes from the common IM (all
mandatory attributes and packages must be included)
- Select the required conditional packages and optional attributes
(note that, where appropriate, conditional packages and optional
attributes may be declared mandatory in the purpose specific IM)
- Remove any optional associations that are not required
o Refactoring allows the model to be simplified and made compatible
with existing models or terminology. Some guidelines for
refactoring include:
- Collapsing of classes when reducing multiplicity (e.g., from
[1..*] to [1]). When this results in a composition association
of multiplicity [1] between a subordinate and superior object
class, they can be combined into a single object class by moving
the attributes of the superior class into the subordinate class.
- Splitting of a class along a view boundary where the two parts
are related by a specific multiplicity.
- Where beneficial, reducing the depth of the inheritance (i.e.,
combining object classes by moving the attributes of the super
class into the subclass).
- Adding reverse navigation, if useful for the purpose. In many
places in the common IM, there is only support for navigation
from a subordinate object class to a superior object class.
This allows new subordinate object classes to be added without
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
any impact on the superior object class. In a purpose specific
implementation it is frequently useful to be able to navigate
the relationship between superior and subordinate object classes
in both directions.
- Constraining attribute definitions. This can be done by
reducing legal value ranges, defining which (if any) attributes
should be read only (for all users), and/or defining constraints
between attributes.
o Traceability
Use the Realization association with a specific stereotype
PruneAndRefactor to maintain the traceability from the pruned/
refactored model to the Common IM.
4.4. Data Schema
A data schema (DS) is developed in the context of either a specific
protocol that is used to implement a purpose specific interface or a
programming language that is used to invoke a purpose specific API.
The DS is constructed by mapping of the purpose specific information
model together with the operations patterns from the common
information model to provide the interface protocol specific DS that
includes operations and notifications. The operations should include
data structures taken directly from the purpose specific information
model view with no further adjustment.
The development of the data schema should consider the following:
o The operations should act on the information in a way consistent
with the modeled object lifecycle interdependency rules as defined
in the common IM.
- Instance lifecycle dependencies should ensure sensible interface
operation structuring and interface flow rules
- Some form of transaction should be used over the interface to
account for lifecycle dependencies of the model
o The operations should abide by the attribute properties. Read
only attributes (except those which are defined as isInvariant)
should not be included in data related to creation of an object
(e.g., not in createData) or in a specification of a desired
object structure outcome.
o Usage of attribute value ranges, etc. to allow "effort" statement,
optionality and negotiation to be supported by the interface.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
4.5. Interface encoding
This step encodes either a purpose specific data schema or a purpose
specific information model into either: (i) a specific protocol that
is used to implement a purpose specific interface, or (ii) a
programming language that is used to invoke a purpose specific API.
If the interface is encoded directly from the purpose specific
information model then the interface operations must be added as
described above.
5. Translation from UML
Applying the methodology outlined in Section 4, protocol-specific
interface data schema/encodings may be derived from existing, and
emerging, standard UML information models addressing the forwarding
and networking domains (e.g., [ITU-T_G.7711], G.874.1
[ITU-T_G.874.1]).
In order to assure a consistent and valid data modelling language
representation that enables maximum interoperability, translation
guidelines from UML information models to data schema/interface
encodings are required. A set of translation rules also assists in
development of automated tooling.
Guidelines have been developed for translation of data modeled with
UML to YANG including mapping of object classes, attributes, data
types, associations, interfaces, operations and operation parameters,
notifications, and lifecycle [ONF_TR-531], [I-D.mansfield-uml].
It should be noted that the concept of deriving protocol-specific
modules from UML information models is not new (e.g., MEF 38 [MEF_38]
and MEF 39 [MEF_39] provide YANG modules derived from UML information
models G.8052 [ITU-T_G.8052] and MEF 7.1 [MEF_7.1] for Service OAM
Fault and Performance Monitoring, respectively.). What is new is the
concept of an open, modular, evolvable common information model,
coupled with an associated suite of essential guidelines and tooling
(e.g., UML, Open Source tooling, translation, etc.), for realizing a
coherent set of solution modules.
6. Summary
This draft describes a modular and scalable approach for
systematically deriving purpose and protocol specific interfaces from
an underlying common information model, focusing upon the networking
and forwarding domain. Building upon an underlying common
information modeling description of network resources (functionality,
capabilities, flexibility) is a key enabler to convergence and
interoperability. It is also future proof in the sense that the
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
emergence of new protocols becomes solely a non-disruptive mapping
issue. It should be noted that not all domains require development
of information model prior to solutions development; the domains
where this is of greatest benefit involve networking domains
requiring support for an enhanced level of control and network
programmability.
7. Acknowledgements
8. Contributors
Dave Hood
Ericsson
USA
email dave.hood@ericsson.com
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. Security Considerations
This informational document only describes a framework for deriving
interface data schema from UML Information Models. As such, security
concerns are out of the scope of this document.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between
Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3444, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3444>.
11.2. Informative References
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
[I-D.lam-topology]
Lam, K., Varma, E., Doolan, P., Davis, N., Zeuner, B.,
Betts, M., Busi, I., and S. Mansfield, "Usage of IM for
network topology to support TE Topology YANG Module
Development", 2016, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology/>.
[I-D.mansfield-uml]
Mansfield, S., Zeuner, B., Davis, N., Yun, Y., Tochio, Y.,
Lam, K., and E. Varma, "Guidelines for Translation of UML
Information Model to YANG Data Model", 2016,
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-mansfield-netmod-uml-to-yang/>.
[ISO_IEC_UML]
ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 19505-1:2012 - Information technology -
Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG
UML) - Part 1: Infrastructure. Iso.org.2012-04-20.
Retrieved 2014-04-10", 2012.
[ITU-T_G.7711]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.7711/Y.1702 (2016), Generic protocol-
neutral management Information Model for transport network
resources", 2016.
[ITU-T_G.8052]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.8052/Y.1346 (2016), Protocol-neutral
management information model for the Ethernet Transport
capable network element", 2016,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.8052/en>.
[ITU-T_G.8152]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.8152/Y.1375 (2016), Protocol-neutral
management information model for the MPLS-TP network
element", 2016.
[ITU-T_G.874.1]
ITU-T, "ITU-T G.874.1 (2016), Optical transport network:
Protocol-neutral management information model for the
network element view", 2016,
<http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.874.1/en>.
[MEF_38] MEF, "Service OAM Fault Management YANG Modules", 2012, <h
ttp://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_Specific
ations/PDF/MEF_38.pdf>.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
[MEF_39] MEF, "Service OAM Performance Monitoring YANG Module",
2012, <http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_
Specifications/PDF/MEF_39.pdf>.
[MEF_7.1] MEF, "Carrier Ethernet Management Information Model
[superseded by MEF 7.2, which supports additional sets of
service attributes defined in recent MEF specifications]",
2009, <http://www.metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Technical_
Specifications/PDF/MEF7.1.pdf>.
[NGMN_NGCOR]
NGMN Alliance, "Next Generation Converged Operations
Requirements (NGCOR)", 2013,
<http://www.ngmn.org/uploads/media/
NGMN_Next_Generation_Converged_Operations_Requirements_-
_Final_Deliverable.pdf>.
[OMG_UML] OMG, "OMG Unified Modelling Language (UML),
Infrastructure, Version 2.4.1", 2011.
[ONF_TR-512]
ONF, "TR-512 Core Information Model 1.2", 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-
512_CIM_(CoreModel)_1.2.zip>.
[ONF_TR-513]
ONF, "TR-513 Common Information Model Overview 1.2", 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-
513_CIM_Overview_1.2.pdf>.
[ONF_TR-514]
ONF, "TR-514 UML Modeling Guidelines 1.2", 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-
514_UML_Modeling_Guidelines_v1.2.pdf>.
[ONF_TR-515]
ONF, "TR-515 Papyrus Guidelines 1.2", 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-
515_Papyrus_Guidelines_v1.2.pdf>.
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
[ONF_TR-531]
ONF, "TR-531 UML to YANG Mapping Guidelines 1.0", 2016,
<https://www.opennetworking.org/images/stories/downloads/
sdn-resources/technical-reports/TR-531_UML-
YANG_Mapping_Guidelines_v1.0.pdf>.
[TMF_MTNM]
TM Forum, "TM Forum Multi Technology Network Management,
Release 3.5", 2009,
<http://www.tmforum.org/MTNM/1689/www.tmforum.org/
DownloadCenter/7549/home.html#mtnm>.
[TMF_MTOSI]
TM Forum, "TM Forum Multi Technology OS Interface, Release
3.0", 2012,
<http://www.tmforum.org/MTNM/1689/www.tmforum.org/
DownloadCenter/7549/home.html#mtosi>.
[TMF_TR225]
TM Forum, "TM Forum TR225, Logical Resource: Network
Function Model", 2014.
Appendix A. Additional Material
TBD
Authors' Addresses
Malcolm Betts (editor)
ZTE
Canada
Phone: +1 678 534 2542
Email: malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn
Nigel Davis (editor)
Ciena
UK
Email: ndavis@ciena.com
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Data Schema from UML Model October 2016
Kam Lam (editor)
Nokia
USA
Phone: +1 732 331 3476
Email: kam.lam@nokia.com
Eve Varma (editor)
Nokia
USA
Email: eve.varma@nokia.com
Bernd Zeuner (editor)
Deutsche Telekom
Germany
Phone: +49 6151 58 12086
Email: b.zeuner@telekom.de
Scott Mansfield (editor)
Ericsson
USA
Phone: +1 724 931 9316
Email: scott.mansfield@ericsson.com
Paul Doolan (editor)
Coriant
Germany
Phone: +1 972 357 5822
Email: paul.doolan@coriant.com
Betts, et al. Expires April 28, 2017 [Page 17]
