Internet DRAFT - draft-tnbidt-ccamp-transport-nbi-analysis-uc1
draft-tnbidt-ccamp-transport-nbi-analysis-uc1
CCAMP Working Group I. Busi (Ed.)
Internet Draft Huawei
Intended status: Informational D. King (Ed.)
Lancaster University
Expires: April 2018 October 30, 2017
Analysis of Transport North Bound Interface Use Case 1
draft-tnbidt-ccamp-transport-nbi-analysis-uc1-01
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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document analyses how YANG models being defined by IETF (TEAS
and CCAMP WGs in particular) can be used to support Use Case 1
(single-domain with single-layer) scenarios, as referenced later in
this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
1.1. Assumptions...............................................3
1.2. Feedbacks provided to the IETF Working Groups.............3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................4
3. High-level Overview............................................5
3.1. Topology Abstraction......................................5
3.1.1. ODU White Topology Abstraction.......................5
3.2. Service Configuration.....................................8
3.2.1. ODU Transit Service..................................8
3.2.2. EPL over ODU Service................................10
3.2.3. OTN Client Private Line Service.....................11
3.2.4. EVPL over ODU Service...............................12
4. Topology Abstraction: detailed JSON examples..................12
4.1. ODU White Topology Abstraction...........................12
5. Service Configuration: detailed JSON examples.................13
5.1. ODU Transit Service......................................13
6. Security Considerations.......................................13
7. IANA Considerations...........................................13
8. Conclusions...................................................13
9. References....................................................13
9.1. Normative References.....................................13
9.2. Informative References...................................14
10. Acknowledgments..............................................14
Appendix A. Validating a JSON fragment against a YANG Model......15
A.1. DSDL-based approach......................................15
A.2. Why not using a XSD-based approach.......................15
A.3. JSON Code: use-case-1-topology-01.json...................16
A.4. JSON Code: use-case-1-topology-01.json...................16
1. Introduction
This document analyses how YANG models being developed by IETF (TEAS
and CCAMP WGs) can be used to support Use Case 1 (single-domain with
single-layer) scenarios, as described in [TNBI-UseCases].
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
1.1. Assumptions
This document analyses how existing models developed by the IETF can
be used at the MPI between the Transport PNC and the MDSC to support
the use case 1 scenarios, as defined in section 3 of [TNBI-UseCases].
This document assumes the applicability of the YANG models to the
ACTN interfaces as defined in [ACTN-YANG] and therefore considers the
TE Topology YANG model defined in [TE-TOPO], with the OTN Topology
augmentation defined in [OTN-TOPO] and the TE Tunnel YANG model
defined in [TE-TUNNEL], with the OTN Tunnel augmentation defined in
[OTN-TUNNEL].
The analysis of how to use the attributes in the I2RS Topology YANG
model, defined in [I2RS-TOPO], is for further study.
Moreover, this document is making the following assumptions, still to
be validated with TEAS WG:
1. The MDSC can request, at the MPI, the Transport PNC to setup a
Transit Tunnel Segment using the TE Tunnel YANG model: in this
case, since the endpoints of the E2E Tunnel are outside the domain
controlled by the Transport PNC, the MDSC would not specify any
source or destination TTP (i.e., it would leave the source,
destination, src-tp-id and dst-tp-id attributes empty) and it
would use the explicit-route-object list to specify the ingress
and egress links of the Transit Tunnel Segment.
2. The Transport PNC provides to the MDSC, at the MPI, the list of
available timeslots on the access links using the TE Topology YANG
model and OTN Topology augmentation. The TE Topology YANG model in
[TE-TOPO] is being updated to report the label set information.
1.2. Feedbacks provided to the IETF Working Groups
The analysis done in this version of this document has triggered the
following feedbacks to CCAMP WG:
o A set of YANG models have been submitted in draft-zheng-ccamp-
client-topo-yang and draft-zheng-ccamp-otn-client-signal-yang,
providing an initial proposal, to be reviewed and discussed by the
DT and the CCAMP WG, to resolve the open issues for EPL, other OTN
client Private Line and EVPL services described in this version of
the document.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
2. Conventions used in this document
This document provides some detailed JSON code examples to describe
how the YANG models being developed by IETF (TEAS and CCAMP WG in
particular) can be used.
The examples are provided using JSON because JSON code is easier for
humans to read and write.
Different objects need to have an identifier. The convention used to
create mnemonic identifiers is to use the object name (e.g., S3 for
node S3), followed by its type (e.g., NODE), separated by an "-",
followed by "-ID". For example the mnemonic identifier for node S3
would be S3-NODE-ID.
JSON language does not support the insertion of comments that have
been instead found to be useful when writing the examples. This
document inserts comments into the JSON code as JSON name/value pair
with the JSON name string starting with the "//" characters. For
example, when describing the example of a TE Topology instance
representing the ODU Abstract Topology exposed by the Transport PNC,
the following comment has been added to the JSON code:
"// comment": "ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI",
The JSON code examples provided in this document have been validated
against the YANG models following the validation process described in
Appendix A, which would not consider the comments.
In order to have successful validation of the examples, some
numbering scheme has been defined to assign identifiers to the
different entities which would pass the syntax checks. In that case,
to simplify the reading, another JSON name/value pair, formatted as a
comment and using the mnemonic identifiers is also provided. For
example, the identifier of node S3 (S3-NODE-ID) has been assumed to
be "10.0.0.3" and would be shown in the JSON code example using the
two JSON name/value pair:
"// te-node-id": "S3-NODE-ID",
"te-node-id": "10.0.0.3",
The first JSON name/value pair will be automatically removed in the
first step of the validation process while the second JSON name/value
pair will be validate against the YANG model definitions.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
3. High-level Overview
Use Case 1 is described in [TNBI-UseCases] as a single-domain with
single layer network scenario supporting different types of services.
This section provides a high-level overview of how IETF YANG models
can be used to support these uses cases at the MPI between the
Transport PNC and the MDSC.
Section 3.1 describes the topology abstraction provided to the MDSC
by the Transport PNC at the MPI.
Section 3.2 describes how the difference services, defined in section
4.3 of [TNBI-UseCases], can be requested to the Transport PNC by the
MDSC at the MPI.
3.1. Topology Abstraction
3.1.1. ODU White Topology Abstraction
In case the Transport PNC exports to the MDSC a white topology, at
the MPI there will be one TE Topology instance for the ODU layer
(called "ODU Topology") containing one TE Node (called "ODU Node")
for each physical node, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
..................................
: :
: ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI :
: :
: +----+ +----+ :
: | | | | :
: | S1 |--------| S2 |- - - - -(C-R4)
: +----+ +----+ :
: / | :
: / | :
: +----+ +----+ | :
: | | | | | :
(C-R1)- - - - -| S3 |---| S4 | | :
:S3-1+----+ +----+ | :
: \ \ | :
: \ \ | :
: +----+ \ | :
: | | \ | :
: | S5 | \ | :
: +----+ \ | :
(C-R2)- - - - - / \ \ | :
:S6-1 \ / \ \ | :
: +----+ +----+ +----+ :
: | | | | | | :
: | S6 |---| S7 |---| S8 |- - - - -(C-R5)
: +----+ +----+ +----+ :
: / :
(C-R3)- - - - - :
:S6-2 :
:................................:
Figure 1 White Topology Abstraction (ODU Topology)
The ODU Nodes in Figure 1 are using with the same names as the
physical nodes to simplify the description of the mapping between the
ODU Nodes exposed by the Transport PNCs at the MPI and the physical
nodes in the data plane. This does not correspond to the reality of
the usage of the topology model, as described in section 4.3 of [TE-
TOPO], in which renaming by the client it is necessary.
As described in section 3.2 of [TNBI-UseCases], it is assumed that
the physical links between the physical nodes are pre-configured up
to the OTU4 trail using mechanisms which are outside the scope of
this document. The Transport PNC exports to the MDSC via the MPI, one
TE Link (called "ODU Link") for each of these physical links.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
Access links in Figure 1 are shown as ODU Links: the modeling of the
access links for other access technologies is currently an open
issue.
The modeling of the access link in case of non-ODU access technology,
has also an impact on the need to model ODU TTPs and layer transition
capabilities on the edge nodes (e.g., nodes S2, S3, S6 and S8 in
Figure 1).
If, for example, the physical NE S6, is implemented in a "pizza box",
the data plane would have only set of ODU termination resources
(where up to 2xODU4, 4xODU3, 20xODU2, 80xODU1, 160xODU0 and
160xODUflex can be terminated). The traffic coming from each of the
10GE access links can be mapped into any of these ODU terminations.
Instead if, for example, the physical NE S6 can be implemented as a
multi-board system where access links reside on different/dedicated
access cards with separated set of ODU termination resources(where up
to 1xODU4, 2xODU3, 10xODU2, 40xODU1, 80xODU0 and 80xODUflex for each
resource can be terminated). The traffic coming from one 10GE access
links can be mapped only into the ODU terminations which reside on
the same access card.
The more generic implementation option for a physical NE (e.g., S6)
would be case is of a multi-board system with multiple access cards
with separated sets of access links and ODU termination resources
(where up to 1xODU4, 2xODU3, 10xODU2, 40xODU1, 80xODU0 and 80xODUflex
for each resource can be terminated). The traffic coming from each of
the 10GE access links on one access card can be mapped only into any
of the ODU terminations which reside on the same access card.
In the last two cases, only the ODUs terminated on the same access
card where the access links resides can carry the traffic coming from
that 10GE access link. Terminated ODUs can instead be sent to any of
the OTU4 interfaces
In all these cases, terminated ODUs can be sent to any of the OTU4
interfaces assuming the implementation is based on a non-blocking ODU
cross-connect.
If the access links are reported via MPI in some, still to be
defined, client topology, it is possible to report each set of ODU
termination resources as an ODU TTP within the ODU Topology of Figure
1 and to use either the inter-layer lock-id or the transitional link,
as described in sections 3.4 and 3.10 of [TE-TOPO], to correlate the
access links, in the client topology, with the ODU TTPs, in the ODU
topology, to which access link are connected to.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
The "external-domain" container allows the MDSC to glue together the
ODU Topology provided by the Transport PNC with the information
provided by the IP PNC to know which access link is connected with
each link/router in the IP domain (e.g., that C-R1 is connected with
the access link terminating on S3-1 LTP in the ODU Topology).
Further details about how the MDSC can glue together the access link
information will be added in a future version of this document.
3.2. Service Configuration
3.2.1. ODU Transit Service
In this case, the access links are configured as ODU Link, as
described in section 3.1.1 above.
As described in section 4.3.1 of [TNBI-UseCases], the MDSC needs to
setup an ODU2 trail, supporting an IP link, between C-R1 and C-R3.
From the topology information described in section 3.1.1 above, the
MDSC can know that C-R1 is attached to the access link terminating on
S3-1 LTP in the ODU Topology and that C-R3 is attached to the access
link terminating on S6-2 LTP in the ODU Topology.
Based on the assumption 1) in section 1.1, MDSC would then request
the Transport PNC to setup an ODU2 (Transit Segment) Tunnel between
S3-1 and S6-2 LTPs:
o Source and Destination TTPs are not specified (since it is a
Transit Tunnel)
o Ingress and egress points are indicated in the explicit-route-
objects of the primary path:
o The first element of the explicit-route-objects references the
access link terminating on S3-1 LTP
o Last element of the explicit-route-objects references the
access link terminating on S6-2 LTP
The configuration of the timeslots used by the ODU2 connection within
the transport network domain (i.e., on the internal links) is a
matter of the Transport PNC and its interactions with the physical
network elements and therefore is outside the scope of this document.
However, the configuration of the timeslots used by the ODU2
connection at the edge of the transport network domain (i.e., on the
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
access links) needs to take into account not only the timeslots
available on the physical nodes at the edge of the transport network
domain (e.g., S3 and S6) but also on the devices, outside of the
transport network domain, connected through these access links (e.g.,
C-R1 and C-R3).
Based on the assumption 2) in section 1.1, the MDSC, when requesting
the Transport PNC to setup the (Transit Segment) ODU2 Tunnel, it
would also configure the timeslots to be used on the access links.
The MDSC can know the timeslots which are available on the edge OTN
Node (e.g., S3 and S6) from the OTN Topology information exposed by
the Transport PNC at the MPI as well as the timeslots which are
available on the devices outside of the transport network domain
(e.g., C-R1 and C-R3), by means which are outside the scope of this
document.
The Transport PNC performs path computation and sets up the ODU2
cross-connections within the physical nodes S3, S5 and S6, as shown
in section 4.3.1 of [TNBI-UseCases].
The Transport PNC reports the status of the created ODU2 (Transit
Segment) Tunnel and its path within the ODU Topology as shown in
Figure 2 below:
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
..................................
: :
: ODU Abstract Topology @ MPI :
: :
: +----+ +----+ :
: | | | | :
: | S1 |--------| S2 |- - - - -(C-R4)
: +----+ +----+ :
: / | :
: / | :
: +----+ +----+ | :
: | | | | | :
(C-R1)- - - - - S3 |---| S4 | | :
:S3-1 <<==+ +----+ | :
: = \ | :
: = \ \ | :
: == ---+ \ | :
: = | \ | :
: = S5 | \ | :
: == --+ \ | :
(C-R2)- - - - - = \ \ | :
:S6-1 \ / = \ \ | :
: +--- = +----+ +----+ :
: | = | | | | :
: | S6 = --| S7 |---| S8 |- - - - -(C-R5)
: +--- = +----+ +----+ :
: / = :
(C-R3)- - - - - <<== :
:S6-2 :
:................................:
Figure 2 ODU2 Transit Tunnel
3.2.2. EPL over ODU Service
As described in section 4.3.2 of [TNBI-UseCases], the MDSC needs to
setup an EPL service between C-R1 and C-R3 supported by an ODU2 end-
to-end connection between S3 and S6.
As described in section 3.1.1 above, it is not clear in this case how
the Ethernet access links between the transport network and the IP
router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC.
If the 10GE physical links are not reported as ODU links within the
ODU topology information, described in section 3.1.1 above, than the
MDSC will not have sufficient information to know that C-R1 and C-R3
are attached to nodes S3 and S6.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
Assuming that the MDSC knows how C-R1 and C-R3 are attached to the
transport network, the MDSC would request the Transport PNC to setup
an ODU2 end-to-end Tunnel between S3 and S6.
This ODU Tunnel is setup between two TTPs of nodes S3 and S6. In case
nodes S3 and S6 support more than one TTP, the MDSC should decide
which TTP to use.
As discussed in section 3.1.1, depending on the different hardware
implementations of the physical nodes S3 and S6, not all the access
links can be connected to all the TTPs. The MDSC should therefore not
only select the optimal TTP but also a TTP that would allow the
Tunnel to be used by the service.
It is assumed that in case node S3 or node S6 supports only one TTP,
this TTP can be accessed by all the access links.
Once the ODU2 Tunnel setup has been requested, unless there is a one-
to-one relationship between the S3 and S6 TTPs and the Ethernet
access links toward C-R1 and C-R3 (as in the case, described in
section 3.1.1, where the Ethernet access links reside on
different/dedicated access card such that the ODU2 tunnel can only
carry the Ethernet traffic from the only Ethernet access link on the
same access card where the ODU2 tunnel is terminated), the MDSC also
needs to request the setup of an EPL service from the access links on
S3 and S6, attached to C-R1 and C-R3, and this ODU2 Tunnel.
3.2.3. OTN Client Private Line Service
As described in section 3.1.1 above, it is not clear in this case how
the access links (e.g., the STM-N access links) between the transport
network and the IP router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC.
As described in section 4.3.3 of [TNBI-UseCases], the MDSC needs to
setup an STM-64 Private Link service between C-R1 and C-R3 supported
by an ODU2 end-to-end connection between S3 and S6.
The same issues, as described in section 3.2.2, apply here:
o the MDSC needs to understand that C-R1 and C-R3 are connected,
thought STM-64 access links, with S3 and S6
o the MDSC needs to understand which TTPs in S3 and S6 can be
accessed by these access links
o the MDSC needs to configure the private line service from these
access links through the ODU2 tunnel
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
3.2.4. EVPL over ODU Service
As described in section 3.1.1 above, it is not clear in this case how
the Ethernet access links between the transport network and the IP
router, are reported by the PNC to the MDSC.
As described in section 4.3.3 of [TNBI-UseCases], the MDSC needs to
setup EVPL services between C-R1 and C-R3, as well as between C-R1
and C-R4, supported by ODU0 end-to-end connections between S3 and S6
as well as between S3 and S2.
The same issues, as described in section 3.2.2, apply here:
o the MDSC needs to understand that C-R1, C-R3 and C-R4 are
connected, thought the Ethernet access links, with S3, S6 and S2
o the MDSC needs to understand which TTPs in S3, S6 and S2 can be
accessed by these access links
o the MDSC needs to configure the EVPL services from these access
links through the ODU0 tunnels
In addition, the MDSC needs to get the information that the access
links on S3, S6 and S2 are capable to support EVPL (rather than just
EPL) as well as to coordinate the VLAN configuration, for each EVPL
service, on these access links (this is a similar issue as the
timeslot configuration on access links discussed in section 3.2.1
below).
4. Topology Abstraction: detailed JSON examples
4.1. ODU White Topology Abstraction
Section 3.1.1 describes how the Transport PNC can provide a white
topology abstraction to the MDSC via the MPI. Figure 1 is an example
of such ODU Topology.
This section provides the detailed JSON code describing how this ODU
Topology is reported by the PNC, using the [TE-TOPO] and [OTN-TOPO]
YANG models at the MPI.
JSON code "use-case-1-topology-01.json" has been provided at in the
appendix of this document.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
5. Service Configuration: detailed JSON examples
5.1. ODU Transit Service
Section 3.2.1 describes how the MDSC can request a Transport PNC, via
the MPI, to setup an ODU2 transit service over an ODU Topology
described in section 3.1.1.
This section provides the detailed JSON code describing how the setup
of this ODU2 transit service can be requested by the MDSC, using the
[TE-TUNNEL] and [OTN-TUNNEL] YANG models at the MPI.
JSON code "use-case-1-odu2-service-01.json" has been provided at in
the appendix of this document.
6. Security Considerations
This section is for further study
7. IANA Considerations
This document requires no IANA actions.
8. Conclusions
This section is for further study
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[TNBI-UseCases] Busi, I., King, D. et al, "Transport Northbound
Interface Applicability Statement and Use Cases", draft-
ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-use-cases, work in progress.
[TE-TOPO] Liu, X. et al., "YANG Data Model for TE Topologies", draft-
ietf-teas-yang-te-topo, work in progress.
[OTN-TOPO] Zheng, H. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport
Network Topology", draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang, work in
progress.
[TE-TUNNEL] Saad, T. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Traffic
Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang-
te, work in progress.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
[OTN-TUNNEL] Zheng, H. et al., "OTN Tunnel YANG Model", draft-ietf-
ccamp-otn-tunnel-model, work in progress.
9.2. Informative References
[ACTN-YANG] Zhang, X. et al., "Applicability of YANG models for
Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks",
draft-zhang-teas-actn-yang, work in progress.
[I2RS-TOPO] Clemm, A. et al., "A Data Model for Network Topologies",
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo, work in progress.
10. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all members of the Transport NBI
Design Team involved in the definition of use cases, gap analysis and
guidelines for using the IETF YANG models at the Northbound Interface
(NBI) of a Transport SDN Controller.
The authors would like to thank Xian Zhang, Anurag Sharma, Sergio
Belotti, Tara Cummings, Michael Scharf, Karthik Sethuraman, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios, Hans Bjursrom and Italo Busi for having initiated
the work on gap analysis for transport NBI and having provided
foundations work for the development of this document.
The authors would like to thank the authors of the TE Topology and
Tunnel YANG models [TE-TOPO] and [TE-TUNNEL], in particular Igor
Bryskin, Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Tarek Saad and Xufeng Liu, for their
support in addressing any gap identified during the analysis work.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
Appendix A. Validating a JSON fragment against a YANG Model
The objective is to have a tool that allows validating whether a
piece of JSON code is compliant with a YANG model without using a
client/server.
A.1. DSDL-based approach
The idea is to generate a JSON driver file (JTOX) from YANG, then use
it to translate JSON to XML and validate it against the DSDL schemas,
as shown in Figure 3.
Useful link: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/wiki/XmlJson
(2)
YANG-module ---> DSDL-schemas (RNG,SCH,DSRL)
| |
| (1) |
| |
Config/state JTOX-file | (4)
\ | |
\ | |
\ V V
JSON-file------------> XML-file ----------------> Output
(3)
Figure 3 - DSDL-based approach for JSON code validation
In order to allow the use of comments following the convention
defined in section 2 without impacting the validation process, these
comments will be automatically removed from the JSON-file that will
be validate.
A.2. Why not using a XSD-based approach
This approach has been analyzed and discarded because no longer
supported by pyang.
The idea is to convert YANG to XSD, JSON to XML and validate it
against the XSD, as shown in Figure 4:
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
(1)
YANG-module ---> XSD-schema - \ (3)
+--> Validation
JSON-file------> XML-file ----/
(2)
Figure 4 - XSD-based approach for JSON code validation
The pyang support for the XSD output format was deprecated in 1.5 and
removed in 1.7.1. However pyang 1.7.1 is necessary to work with YANG
1.1 so the process shown in Figure 4 will stop just at step (1).
A.3. JSON Code: use-case-1-topology-01.json
The JSON code for this use case is currently located on GitHub at:
https://github.com/danielkinguk/transport-nbi/blob/master/Internet-
Drafts/Use-Case-1-Analysis/use-case-1-topology-01.json
A.4. JSON Code: use-case-1-topology-01.json
The JSON code for this use case is currently located on GitHub at:
https://github.com/danielkinguk/transport-nbi/blob/master/Internet-
Drafts/Use-Case-1-Analysis/use-case-1-odu2-service-01.json
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft T-NBI Use Case 1 Analysis October 2017
Authors' Addresses
Italo Busi (Editor)
Huawei
Email: italo.busi@huawei.com
Daniel King (Editor)
Lancaster University
Email: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Sergio Belotti
Nokia
Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com
Gianmarco Bruno
Ericsson
Email: gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com
Carlo Perocchio
Ericsson
Email: carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com
Busi, King et al. Expires April 30, 2018 [Page 17]