[Casm] CASM BoF Preparation

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: casm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C85129588; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17LABqTyk7Yc; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:21:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BEBB128E18; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:21:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4372; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1488316893; x=1489526493; h=to:cc:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=xyx8UmSDL6IHHPQ486pqSyUGbNRcBO26gXjXAmEpTzQ=; b=IJY1Okk/Wpw2Wb860NAvGr6dKKGEPpzvGoFnm42/azLEDe/K6HN6m6y+ /nC3AMV5SGTtJXqef7xRAKnBinxrzsnKBfi9cjABVWJA9twcYxDEeE3wH 1TOlN/zqEilgXmhEuMVfQp2XXxbXu19uzsgEaBta447dC3XionKXnZ+XT k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0D5DABe6bVY/xbLJq1dHAEBBAEBCgEBh?= =?us-ascii?q?DQnhDqKCHOgeoMdgg+CDYYigm8YAQIBAQEBAQEBYh0LhRoxJR8+Al8NCAEBEAe?= =?us-ascii?q?JXLFigiYrinsBAQEBBgEBAQEBASKGTIIFhxARAYMigl8FnCOSLIF7iFAjhiqLK?= =?us-ascii?q?YgJHzh5CCEUCBcVhww/h3eCLgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,221,1484006400"; d="scan'208,217";a="652882270"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Feb 2017 21:21:31 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v1SLLUGS010288; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:21:30 GMT
To: "CASM@ietf.org" <CASM@ietf.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b388be67-d9cd-bed6-b25d-3344e22c5434@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 22:21:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------711904D4B97D75DB34DF1D06"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/casm/I63Xs--yNnUbU97T3k29U8rGnRA>
Cc: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, "ops-ads@ietf.org" <ops-ads@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [Casm] CASM BoF Preparation
X-BeenThere: casm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Address Space Management <casm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/casm/>
List-Post: <mailto:casm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm>, <mailto:casm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:21:35 -0000

Dear all,

It's time to get organized for the CASM BoF.
Marc Blanchet and Ralph Droms accepted to facilitate the CASM BoF as 
chairs. Thanks to them.

We, OPS ADs, identified a couple of points that would require some more 
explanations IMO.
- Which interfaces does CASM plan on standardizing?
- What are the envisioned key deliverables?
- See Warren's email on "where is the border"?

There are surely some more, but that should get the discussion started.

The two CASM drafts are in their 00 release and are pretty light to be 
They would benefit from some updates.

A BoF is successful when the proponents are able to clearly explain 
their problem statement to the audience, to get the audience to agree 
that this is an important topic, and propose (a start of) a solution as 
a way forward.
RFC 5434 is a good read, from which I particularly like:

    In those cases, the goal of the
    BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:

           - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
             group to attempt solving it.

           - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
             problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).

           - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
             is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
             what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

           - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
             proposed documents) are the right set.

           - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
             having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
             charter in a timely fashion).

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD).