Re: [Anima] RTGWG-chairs: slot for RTGWG@109 to present on GRASP ? (was: Re: draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol (was: Re: IETF 105 mic comments on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol))

[Yingzhen Qu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,

Please double check your slides in the meeting materials and let me know if there is any problem.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On 11/14/20, 1:48 AM, "Toerless Eckert" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Slides uploaded via propose slide. Hope that worked...

    Cheers
        Toerless

    On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 07:12:42PM +0000, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
    > Hi Toerless,
    > 
    > We??ll provide you a 20-mins slot in RTGWG Wednesday session. Would you please provide some details/pointers about your presentation? I need to update the agenda with the info so people have time to read up.
    > 
    > Thanks,
    > Yingzhen
    > From: rtgwg <[e-mail]>
    > Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 4:14 PM
    > To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>, ??????( 00419335) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Lizhenbin <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Guyunan <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
    > Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
    > Subject: Re: RTGWG-chairs: slot for RTGWG@109 to present on GRASP ? (was: Re: draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol (was: Re: IETF 105 mic comments on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol))
    > Toerless,
    > 
    > We will provide a slot, most likely during the 2nd meeting.
    > Please send an email to RTGWG with a short intro so people who might be interested have the time read up.
    > 
    > Thanks!
    > 
    > Cheers,
    > Jeff
    > On Nov 10, 2020, 11:48 AM -0800, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, wrote:
    > 
    > I'd like to underline what Toerless said. I looked at the two use casess
    > in the protocol-assisted-protocol draft and they seem very easy to
    > map onto GRASP. I don't really have time before the meeting to do
    > that but they are certainly use cases we could have included in the
    > original use case BOF that led to ANIMA.
    > 
    > Regards
    > Brian Carpenter
    > 
    > On 11-Nov-20 05:57, Toerless Eckert wrote:
    > 
    > In followup to the discuss on draft-li-rtgwg-protocol-assisted-protocol:
    > 
    > Checking RTGWG agenda, it seems you might still have time available,
    > so if you are interested, i would be happy to whip up a few slides
    > to five an overview of GRASP and how we imagine it to be useable
    > to automate operational workflows for various services, including
    > routing protocols.
    > 
    > Cheers
    > Toerless
    > 
    > In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
    > 
    > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 05:52:35PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote:
    > 
    > I see subject draft is again on the agenda of RTGWG'109 and the authors also asked
    > for a slot to present to ANIMA (which we would be happy to have, time permitting).
    > 
    > Some thoughts as contributor, maybe ANIMA chair:
    > 
    > Reading the draft it looks like a reinvention of the ANIMA GRASP protocol
    > that we finished almost 3 years ago, but without many of the mechanisms
    > that make GRASP a well reuseable, easily extensible protocol. So i wonder
    > why we would want to also do another more imited protocol for the same
    > goals.
    > 
    > On the mike RTGWG @IETF105, interest was raised to see a more comprehensive
    > signalling enxchange example. Version 03 of the document seems to have
    > expanded the BGP example a bit, but still not comprehensive enough for me
    > to understand if/how this approach would ultimately work.
    > 
    > I would like to encourage the authors to concentrate on fully specifying
    > intended use-cases - ideally by simply specifying the use-case as
    > solution using GRASP (we call this GRASP objectives). I am sure
    > ANIMA participants (including me) would be happy to help explaining how
    > to specify such a protocol on top of GRASP once we understand the use-case.
    > 
    > Cheers
    > Toerless
    > 
    > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:02:31AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
    > 
    > To repeat my comments from the microphone regarding this draft:
    > 
    > We already have per-protocol operational and configuration state via the
    > IETF yang models for a given protocol.
    > 
    > We also have mechanisms to fetch operational state for such protocols; e.g.
    > netconf and restconf.
    > 
    > Rather than inventing a new mechanism to do troubleshooting for a protocol,
    > I'd suggest it makes better sense to augment existing IETF yang models to
    > include RPCs for interacting with troubleshooting for that protocol.
    > 
    > -- Jeff
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > rtgwg mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frtgwg&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C1783663bf3e04584c4d008d888827083%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637409441120194999%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=syHLZW2J3aFagjDgsOx2mgNbQr115o5BVZ2Nt4tcB0k%3D&amp;reserved=0
    > 
    > --
    > ---
    > [e-mail]
    > 

    -- 
    ---
    [e-mail]