Re: [Casm] Possible charter goals and milestones

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Liushucheng,
>
> Hi Benoit and all,
>
> Thanks for your guidance. After offline discussions among all the 
> proponents, we changed the BoF to non-WG forming in the wiki. 
> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/
>
> We also added the purpose of the BoF in the description:
>
> The purpose of the BoF is to gather a common set of requirements from 
> a larger set of operators and, if needed, possible protocol work 
> milestones and scope.
>
Protocol work?  Which protocol?  Can you expand on what is needed?
I thought the work was about interfaces.
>
> I’m copying the updated version below for your convenience.
>
I believe this is better.

Regards, Benoit
>
> --start—
>
> *Coordinated Address Space Management (CASM)*
>
>   * Description: Organizations use IP Address Space Management (IPAM)
>     tools to manage their IP address space, often with proprietary
>     database and interfaces. This work intends to evolve IPAM into
>     standardized interfaces for coordinated management of IP
>     addresses, including SDN/NFV networks and other forms of
>     virtualization. Use cases include dynamic allocation and release
>     of IP addresses and prefixes based on usage (reallocation in case
>     of no more in use) and/or user intent (for specific services). The
>     purpose of the BoF is to gather a common set of requirements from
>     a larger set of operators and, if needed, possible protocol work
>     milestones and scope.
>
>   * Agenda
>       o Problem statement and use cases
>       o Requirements and framework
>       o Possible charter goals and milestones
>       o Next steps
>   * Status: non-WG Forming
>   * Responsible AD: OPS (Benoit Claise, Joel Jaeggli, Warren Kumari)
>   * BoF proponents: Chongfeng Xie(China Telecom), Rakesh Kumar
>     (Juniper), Ying Cheng(China Unicom), Will Liu(Huawei)
>   * BoF chairs: TBD
>   * Number of people expected to attend: 100
>   * Length of session (1, 1.5, 2, or 2.5 hours): 1.5 hours
>   * Conflicts to avoid (whole Areas and/or WGs): intarea, opsawg,
>     anima, supa, dhc, nfvrg
>   * Mailing List: ​​https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm
>   * Draft charter: TBD
>   * Relevant drafts:
>       o ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-problem-and-use-cases
>       o ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xie-ps-centralized-address-management
>       o ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kumar-casm-requirements-and-framework
>       o ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch
>       o ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang
>
> --end--
>
> Regards,
>
> Will (LIU Shucheng)
>
> *From:*CASM [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Benoit Claise
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:37 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Casm] Possible charter goals and milestones
>
> Dear all,
>
> "Possible charter goals and milestones" is mentioned in the BoF Wiki, 
> but I fail to see which deliverables you have in mind, next to the 
> framework?
> Is/are your deliverable(s) based on 
> draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-yang, so (a) YANG module(s) 
> that would specify the interface and facilitate the automation?
> The BoF WIKI mentions "WG forming", but without a clear view on those 
> deliverables, that's difficult.
>
> Tough question: If the solution is this YANG module, based on 
> draft-sun-i2apm-address-pool-management-arch, should we jump directly 
> to the solution? In other words, what is the BoF added value? Note: I 
> thought that those two drafts received some (mild) support in OPSAWG 
> already in IETF 94.
>
> If one of your deliverables is about the DHCP protocol, then I hope we 
> all agree that it should be done in the dhc WG.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CASM mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/casm