Hello All, I would like to know if it makes sense to have a call for all the northbound work going on against branch nb_conversions. We have received comments for staticd yang PR https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5460 we can discuss them as well. We are ready with PIM Yang file which we would like to raise PR but before that if we wanted to have common understanding of how VRF needs to be handled for protocols. There are different data models around and FRR RIP using VRF in different way. 1. In case of IETF – uses VRF at top level and all protocols are under that. 2. In case of Openconfig – uses VRF at the top level and all protocols are under that. +--rw network-instances +--rw network-instance* [name] +--rw name -> ../config/name +--rw protocols +--rw protocol* [identifier name] +--rw identifier -> ../config/identifier +--rw name -> ../config/name +--rw config | +--rw identifier? identityref | +--rw name? string | +--rw enabled? boolean | +--rw default-metric? uint32 +--ro state +--ro identifier? identityref +--ro name? string +--ro enabled? boolean +--ro default-metric? uint32 1. In case of FRR rip – uses VRF as a list under RIP. module: frr-ripd +--rw ripd +--rw instance* [vrf] +--rw vrf string Also I see that there is a new PR for VRF https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/pull/5492 and we have one defined in staticd Yang (as it was not there before). To have common understanding and avoid duplicate effort a call would help. @Donald Sharp<mailto:sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> Can we use next week Tuesday slot for this discussion? Or shall we schedule a separate meeting on Wednesday or Friday? Please do suggest. Thanks Santosh P K