Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang

Thanks Himanshu,

That all sounds reasonable.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shah, Himanshu [mailto:hshah@ciena.com]
> Sent: 25 May 2016 14:16
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Thomas Morin'; bess@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
> 
> Hi Adrian -
> 
> Appreciate your detail review and the comments.
> Please see below inline responses to your comments..
> 
> Thanks,
> Himanshu
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 8:52 AM
> To: 'Thomas Morin'; bess@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I'm not opposed to this work at all. But I think that the extensive use of the
word
> "service" in the document may cause a load of confusion.
> 
> As far as I can see, this YANG model is about operating and monitoring the
> network components and protocols that are used to realize (deliver) the
service.
> This is all information that the network operator (service provider) cares
about
> deeply, and that the equipment vendor must understand. But a lot of it is
beyond
> the concern (or understanding) of the service consumer who has requested the
> service.
> 
> If I might compare with the work of L3SM, we need to distinguish between the
> "service model" on the interface between the customer and the operator, and
> the "service delivery model" on the northbound interface of an orchestrator".
It
> may be helpful to consider two separate conceptual components: a "service
> orchestrator" that consumes a service model, and a "network orchestrator" that
> consumes the model in this document and uses it to work out what to tell
> protocols, network controller, etc.
> 
> Perhaps the document could be enhanced by a little extra text explaining how
> the model will be used. This need not be pages and pages, just a simple
> statement that, for example, it is expected that this model will be used by
the
> management tools run by network operators in order to manage and monitor the
> network resources that they use to deliver L2VPN services.
> 
> [Himanshu>] Agreed. Will clarify the purpose of the draft as you suggest
above.
> 
> 
> Might I ask also that one sentence is removed from the Abstract *before*
> adoption?
>    This is a
>    living document and contains aspects of object models that have been
>    discussed extensively in the working group with consensus.
> It is not the place of the authors to claim consensus for the content of the
> document: that call belongs to the WG chairs in response to targeted questions
> to the WG. WG adoption is not a measure by which to determine consensus for
> the content of the document, either.
> 
> Additionally, the Introduction has:
>    The definition work is undertaken initially by a smaller
>    working group with members representing various vendors and service
>    providers.
> I'm sure you don't mean to imply any subversion of the IETF process, and I am
> equally sure that this is just a matter of English usage.
> I think you need...
>    The definition work was initially undertaken initially by a small
>    group of co-authors with members representing various vendors and service
>    providers.
> 
> [Himanshu>] Agreed on this as well. Did not mean to shortcut the due process
at
> IETF
> [Himanshu>]
> 
> Again, this change needs to be made before adoption.
> 
> [Himanshu>]
> [Himanshu>] Will update the draft to address your comments in the -00- version
> of the WG draft.
> Does that work for you?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: BESS [mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
> > Sent: 04 May 2016 15:18
> > To: bess@ietf.org
> > Cc: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [bess] Poll for adoption: draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
> >
> > Hello working group,
> >
> > This email starts a two-week poll on adopting
> > draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang [1] as a working group document.
> >
> > Please state on the list if you support adoption or not (in both
> > cases, please also state the reasons).
> >
> > This poll runs until *May 25th*.
> >
> > This call runs in parallel with the adoption call on
> > draft-brissette-bess-evpn-yang hence the extended period.
> >
> >
> > We are *coincidentally* also polling for knowledge of any other IPR
> > that applies to this draft, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in
> > compliance with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for
> > more details).
> >
> > ==> *If* you are listed as a document author or contributor please
> > respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any
> > relevant IPR.
> >
> > The draft will not be adopted until a response has been received from
> > each author and contributor.
> >
> > If you are not listed as an author or contributor, then please
> > explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet
> > been disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Martin & Thomas
> > bess chairs
> >
> > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-bess-l2vpn-yang
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BESS mailing list
> > BESS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess